


A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIRECTED 
AND UNDIRECTED TEACHING 



BY 



FRANCIS SHREVE. PH. D. 



GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS 

CONTRIBUTION TO EDUCATION 

NUMBER SEVEN 




PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 

GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS 

NASHVILLE, TENN. 
1922 



A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIRECTED 
AND UNDIRECTED TEACHING 



BY 



FRANCIS SHRE\ E, PH. D. 



GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS 

CONTRIBUTION TO EDUCATION 

NUMBER SEVEN 




PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF 

GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS 

NASHVILLE. TENN. 
1922 






Copyright, 1922, by Francis Siireve 



McQuiDDY Printing Co. 
Nashville 



CONTENTS 

Chapters Page 

I. Introduction 5 

Review of Literature 5 

Statement of the Problem 25 



II. The General Plan of the Study 27 

Plan I: Two Teachers 27 

Plan II: One Teacher 27 

A Specific Plan for Each Experiment 28 

Variable Factors 29 



III. The Experiments 32 

Experiment 1 : 32 

Experiment 2 39 

Experiment 3 48 

Experiment 4 52 

Experiment 5 57 

Experiment 6 62 

Experiment 7 67 

Experiment 8 72 

IV. Summary and Conclusions 75 

Summary 75 

Conclusions 78 



Bibliography 80 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The writer takes pleasure in acknowledging his indebted- 
ness to the following superintendents, principals, and teach- 
ers whose hearty cooperation made this study possible : 

Supt. 0. G. Wilson, P'airmont, W. Va. 

Principal G. H. Colebank, Fairmont, W. Va. 

H. Y. Clark, Fairmont, W. Va. 

Miss Elizabeth Koletka, Fairmont, W. Va. 

Miss Frances Frost, Fairmont, W. Va. 

Supt. Edgar B. Simms, West Union, W. Va. 

Principal Howard H. Jones, West Union, W. Va. 

Miss Orpha Ashburn, West Union, W. Va. 

Mrs. Lyda M. Strickling, West Union, W. Va. 

Miss Bessie I. Nutter, West Union, W. Va. 

Supt. Goff D. Ramsey, Pennsboro, W. Va. 

Ira Taylor, Pennsboro, W. Va. 

Mrs. Mary P. Woodell, Pennsboro, W. Va. 

C. N. Baldwin, Pennsboro, W. Va. 

Principal M. H. Cole, Fairmont. W. Va, 

Miss Mary Frazier, Fairmont, W. Va. 

Miss Lulu M. Jones, Fairmont, W. Va. 

Miss Launa E. Mason, Fairmont, W. Va. 

Miss Helen M. Fleming, Fairmont, W. Va. 

Miss Evelyn Prickett, Fairmont, W. Va. 

Miss Willard Clayton, Fairmont, W. Va. 

Supt. John C. Shreve, Littleton, W. Va. 

Miss Anna C. O'Dea, Littleton, W. Va. 

Principal Otis H. Milam, Barrackville, W. Va. 

Miss Beatrice Tennant, Barrackville, W. Va. 

The writer's greatest obligation is to Dr. Charles A. Mc- 
Murry, Dr. Joseph Peterson, and Dr. Shelton Phelps, for 
helpful criticism and wise counsel. He is greatly indelDted, 
also, to his wife, Elma Cobb Shreve, for invaluable aid and 
encouragement during the two years required for the com- 
pletion of the investigation. 



A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DIRECTED 
AND UNDIRECTED TEACHING 



CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION 

This study undertakes to evaluate one phase of the su- 
pervision of instruction on the basis of quantitative data. 
This method of measuring educational progress is rapidly 
displacing the earlier method of personal opinion. The 
last decade has witnessed a rapid development of standard 
scales and measurements, w^hich has made possible the 
study of educational problems on a more scientific basis. 
The literature in this field is already abundant and is rap- 
idly accumulating. The abundance of material, however, 
imposes the necessity of confining the review which is to 
follow to the literature bearing most directly on the prob- 
lem under investigation. 

I. Review of Literature 

For convenience of treatment, the books and articles 
bearing on the present problem may be classified roughly 
into three groups: (1) those dealing with the standard 
tests and their uses; (2) experimental studies in the field 
of method; and (3) those dealing with directed learning or 
supervised study. 

Group I: Standard Tests and Measurements 

The work in this field has been summarized in readable 
form in a number of recent books — namely : 

Starch, Daniel — Educational Measurements ; 

Monroe, W. S., et al. — Educational Tests and Measure- 
ments ; 

Chapman, J. C, and Rush, G. P. — Measurement of Class- 
room Products ; 

Monroe, W. S. — Measuring the Results of Teaching; 

Wilson, G. M., and Hoke, K. J. — How to Measure. 

These books are well known to all scientific students of 
educational problems. A detailed treatment of this type 
of literature is unnecessary, therefore, for our present pur- 
pose. One general tendency in this field, however, should 
be noted. The first scales were designed to measure gen- 
eral merit only, while many of the later scales have been 



6 A Comparative Study of 

designed to measure particular characteristics. The former 
may be said to be nonanalytic, whereas the latter are an- 
alytic or diagnostic. This tendency is clearly exhibited, 
for example, in the development of handwriting scales. 
Thorndike's Handwriting Scale, appearing in 1910, is a 
scale for measuring the general merit of handwriting; but 
Freeman's Scale, appearing in 1915, is analytic. It at- 
tempts to measure the essential characteristics of hand- 
writing — namely, uniformity of slant, uniformity of align- 
ment, letter formation, spacing, and quahty of line. The 
same tendency is seen in composition scales. The Hillegas 
Scale measures general merit, while the Harvard-Newton 
Scale differentiates the four typical forms of composi- 
tion : narration, description, exposition, and argumentation. 
Moreover, the defects and merits of each sample are noted 
on the scale. Similarly, in other subjects diagnostic scales 
are being devised. This tendency is noteworthy, for it in- 
dicates that the standard scales are being utilized more and 
more to diagnose the pupil's difficulties as a basis for plan- 
ning remedial measures. 

The magazine articles dealing with the standard scales 
are too numerous to receive individual attention. They 
deal particularly with the construction of scales and their 
uses in measuring the general merits of educational prod- 
ucts and in diagnosing the pupil's abilities and difficulties 
in the various school subjects. These articles will be listed 
in the general bibliography. 

Group II : Studies in the Field of Method 

Numerous experimental studies have been reported deal- 
ing with various phases of method, but only those most 
closely related to the present investigation will be reviewed 
in this connection. 

Several studies have been made to determine the value 
of direct or formal drill in school subjects. Does drill pay? 
What type of drill is most effective? These are the ques- 
tions that have received most attention. 

Phillips performed an experiment to determine the value 
of drill in arithmetic. He used as subjects 69 pupils in 
the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades in one school, divid- 
ing them into two groups approximately equal in size and 
initial ability as determined by the scores on the Stone tests 
for fundamentals and for reasoning. The drill group was 
given ten minutes' drill daily, subtracted from the class 
period, for two months, while the non-drill group continued 
the regular class work. At the close of this period both 
groups were tested again with the Stone tests. It was 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 7 

found : "That the improvement in the fundamentals of the 
combined drill groups was 15 per cent greater than the 
non-drill groups." In every case, with one exception, the 
drill groups excelled the nondrill groups. 

But the two groups may have been unequal in the ability 
to learn, or the teachers conducting the drill may have been 
superior in teaching ability to the teachers instructing the 
non-drill groups. The report does not indicate that any at- 
tempt was made to equalize the learning ability of the two 
groups of pupils or the teaching ability of the two groups 
of teachers. Moreover, the difference of attainment of the 
two groups is too small to have much significance. (Jour, 
of Ed. Psych. 4: 159-163.) 

Brotvn, with 222 pupils of the sixth grade of four dif- 
ferent schools as subjects, found that the drill group gained 
9.8 points on the second test over the first after twenty les- 
sons, while the non-drill group gained only 5.9 points. Ap- 
parently, the tests used were not standard tests, however, 
and no measure of reliability was applied to the data. 
(Jour, of Ed. Psych. 3: 485-492.) 

Another group of investigators, going a step further, 
have undertaken to evaluate special types of drill. 

Mead and Johnson, employing as subjects 209 pupils in 
grades 5 and 6, performed an experiment designed to test 
the relative merits of the Courtis Standard Practice mate- 
rial and the Thompson minimum essentials. They divided 
the pupils into two groups, approximately equal in size and 
initial achievement, as determined by the Courtis Standard 
Tests, Series B. Both groups were practiced ten minutes 
daily for ninety consecutive days, one group with the 
Courtis material and the other with the Thompson mini- 
mum essentials. Then the Courtis Tests were repeated 
with both groups and the amount of gain noted, with the 
following results : 

Total Gross Gain on All the Processes 
Group Attempts Accuracy 

Courtis 10.4 32 

Thompson 4.8 5 

Taken at their face value, these figures indicate that the 
Courtis material is more economical than the Thompson 
minimum essentials. But no measures of reliability were 
used to establish the validity of the data. Then, too, there 
may be some special transfer effect from the Courtis Prac- 
tice material to the Courtis Tests, Series B, which would 
favor the Courtis group. Again, nothing is said concerning 
the equality of the teachers conducting the drill in the two 
groups. (Jour, of Ed. Psych. 9: 287-297.) 



8 A Comparative Study of 

Similarly, Kelly compared the progress of three groups 
working under different types of drill. One group, com- 
posed of grades 5 to 8 and numbering 133, practiced with 
the Courtis Standard Practice material; another group, 
composed of grades 4 to 8 and numbering 146, used the 
Studebaker Economy Practice Exercises; while a third 
group, composed of grades 4 to 8 and numbering 173, prac- 
ticed with special material prepared by the teacher. All 
the groups were given an initial test with the Courtis Stand- 
ard Tests, Series B. The practice continued for twenty 
days, each group devoting the same amount of time to the 
drill. Then the Courtis Tests, Series B, were repeated, 
with the following results : 

Gain in Per Cent 
Groui) Spi'i'd Accuracy 

Courtis 21 16 

studebaker 12 11 

Special material 7 10 

Apparently, the Courtis material is most effective ; but 
no attempt was made to equalize the learning ability of the 
different groups or the teaching ability of the teachers con- 
ducting the drill in the various groups. (Jour, of Ed. Re- 
search, 2: 693-709.) 

In a similar experiment Evans and Knoche found the 
Studebaker Economy Practice Exercises superior to the 
regular class work. (Jour, of Ed. Psych. 10: 263-276.) 

Another noteworthy study in the field of drill is Free- 
mail's pedagogical experiment in handwriting to test the 
value of a set of principles which he had derived from an 
extended laboratory study of the handwriting movement. 
In summarizing this experiment, he wrote : 

"In the pedagogical experiment a system of exercises was 
devised to put in practice and test the foregoing principles. 
In these exercises emphasis was laid first upon hand posi- 
tion. The child was taught to hold his hand so that the 
wrist did not slant more than 45 from horizontal, to sup- 
port his hand upon the third and fourth fingers, to slide it 
easily upon this support, and to grasp the pen lightly with 
the fingers curved in a natural manner. Exercises were 
given to develop free and easy sideward movement of the 
hand across the page. The organization of the movement 
into units was encouraged and controlled by requiring the 
child to write to a count. The count was so arranged as to 
make the division between the units come at appropriate 
places in the letters. The speed of writing was gradually 
increased as the child acquired practice and maturity. 
Finally, the general educational principle that the child 
should have clearly in mind the aim of his practice was ap- 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 9 

plied by directing the child's attention to the analysis of the 
form of his own letters and to their systematic correction." 

Freeman used as subjects for this experiment grades 2 
to 8 in three of the Kansas City schools — namely, the Long- 
fellow, the Bryant, and the Quindaro. The Longfellow 
school served as the experimental school, and the Bryant 
and the Quindaro as check or control schools. 

The work in the experimental school was directed for a 
period of eight months according to the special plan de- 
vised by Freeman and his assistants. Throughout this 
same period the control schqols followed a modified Palmer 
System, with no systematic supervision on the part of those 
conducting the experiment. All the schools were rated in 
September on the Freeman Scale, and again in December, 
February, and May. The pupils of the experimental school 
were kept informed of their progress, and their attention 
directed to the analysis of their own writing habits and to 
the systematic correction of their errors. The control 
schools received no communication while the experiment 
was in progress, except the request for test papers at the 
proper times. 

In tabulating the results, only the records of the pupils 
who were present for the first and the last tests were con- 
sidered. The complete records were found to number 149 
in the Longfellow, 194 in the Bryant, and 157 in the Quin- 
daro. The grading was all done by one person using the 
Freeman Scale. The following results were obtained: 

Average Gain 
Speed Quality 

Standard 7.1 1.6 

Experimental School 28.0 4.34 

Control Schools 20.5 0.43 

The foregoing data show a decided advantage in favor of 
the experimental group, particularly in quality. The con- 
trol schools made nearly as much gain in speed, but they 
made less than the standard gain in quality. (Freeman, 
F. N., The Handwriting Movement.) 

A more recent study is that of O'Brien, dealing particu- 
larly with the development of speed in silent reading. His 
specific problem was : "To construct for the teacher in the 
classroom, types of training in effective rapid silent reading, 
based upon the findings of experimental science." The in- 
vestigation seeks to determine the factors affecting the rate 
of silent reading and to provide specific training for each 
of these factors. The chief emphasis is placed upon the fol- 
lowing : 



10 A Comparative Study of 

1. Training in rapid silent reading. 

2. Training to decrease vocalization. 

3. Training in perception. 

O'Brien used as subjects grades 3 to 8 in twenty schools, 
located in nine cities in Illinois. These subjects were drawn 
from practically every social strata in our heterogeneous 
population. After eliminating the records of all the pupils 
who were not present for all the tests, 875 complete records 
were obtained. Of this number, 32 were in the third grade, 
263 in the fourth, 154 in the fifth, 128 in the sixth, 206 in 
the seventh, and 92 in the eighth. The pupils of each grade 
were divided into two groups approximately equal in num- 
ber and reading rate on the basis of the rate scores on the 
Courtis Silent Reading Tests. In addition to dividing each 
grade into two groups whose aggregate rate scores were 
approximately equal, the grade was subdivided into pairs 
of pupils approximately equal in rate of reading. Then one 
member of each pair was placed in the experimental group 
and the other in the control group. 

The period of training extended from April 8, 1919, to 
May 29, 1919, comprising thirty-nine school days. The 
same teacher taught both the experimental group and the 
control group in each grade. Both groups were given the 
Courtis Silent Reading Tests at the beginning, at the mid- 
dle, and at the end of the training period, and progress was 
measured in terms of the scores made on these tests. Writ- 
ten directions were placed in the hands of each teacher co- 
operating in the experiment. These directions provided for 
thirty minutes' daily drill in rapid silent reading, for accu- 
rate checking up on the daily scores, and for keeping each 
pupil informed of his progress. These thirty-minute pe- 
riods constituted the total amount of time devoted to read- 
ing while the experiment was in progress. The pupils were 
asked to read as fast as they could for two or three min- 
utes ; then they were asked to reproduce, orally or in writ- 
ing, what they had read. The reproduction was by free 
paraphrase or in response to specific questions based upon 
the text. Thus reading and reproducing alternated through- 
out the daily period. Each practice period had a specific 
aim — namely, (1) to increase the rate of reading, (2) to 
decrease vocalization, or (3) to increase the perception 
span. 

To insure greater accuracy, all the Courtis tests were 
scored by trained clerks working under the director of the 
experiment. 

O'Brien found a decided advantage in favor of the experi- 
mental groups. The comparative gains in rate of re^d- 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 11 

ing, in terms of the average number of words per minute, 
were: 

Gross Percentage 

Experimental Groups 110.2 56 

Control Groups 46.2 25 

In comprehension the gains and losses were small, but in 
favor of the experimental groups. The results were as fol- 
lows: 

Gross Percentage 

Experimental Groups 4.4 0.09 

Control Groups —3.6 —0.07 

But no measure of the learning abihty of the two groups 
was taken. While they were approximately equal in initial 
achievement, there may have been a significant difference 
in learning ability. 

^ The eye-movement records show that the improvement is 
effected by a lessening of the number of fixations rather 
than by a shortening of the average duration of the fix- 
ations. There is, also, a decrease in the number of regres- 
sive movements. The movements become more regular and 
rhythmical. (O'Brien, J. A., Silent Reading.) 

In the field of general method of teaching two questions 
particularly have been treated experimentally: 

1. Which is the best method of teaching — the textbook 
method, the lecture method, or the laboratory method? 

2. Which is the more effective method of teaching — the 
inductive or the deductive method? 

Relative to the first of these problems, Mayman made an 
investigation to determine the best method of teaching 
Physics in grades 7 and 8, using as subjects all the classes 
of grades 7 and 8 in Public School 84, Brooklyn. The total 
number of pupils was approximately 500. The experiment 
extended over the first and second school terms of 1911. 
The classes "were so divided that each lesson in science 
was taught to each class of the same grade by a different 
method. Upon the completion of the series of lessons, the 
classes were tested by uniform tests, and thus the effect of 
each method noted." ' The totals of the average percentage 
on these tests gave the following results : 

Book method 1555 

Lecture method 1891 

Laboratory method 1949 

The laboratory method produced the highest average per- 
centage in sixteen out of thirty lessons, while the lecture 
method produced the highest average in ten out of thirty 
lessons. In no case did the textbook method produce the 



12 A Comparative Study of 

highest average. The total time consumed by each method 
was: Lecture method, 121 minutes; laboratory method, 143 
minutes ; and the book method, 232 minutes. 

On the basis of percental attainments, therefore, the lab- 
oratory method ranks first, the lecture method second, and 
the book method third. With respect to the time consumed, 
the lecture method ranks first, the experimental method 
second, and the book method third. But the validity of 
these conclusions is open to question. The experimenter's 
statements concerning his method and technique are vague 
and indefinite. Apparently, the method of checking up on 
the results is unreliable, being based upon teachers' marks 
or grades. (Jour, of Ed. Psych. 6 : 246-250.) 

Wiley performed a similar experiment with respect to 
high-school chemistry. His main problem was to deter- 
mine the best of three methods of teaching chemistry — 
namely, the textbook-recitation method, the lecture method, 
and the laboratory method. The subjects for this experi- 
ment consisted of twenty-four junior and senior high- 
school students. They were divided into three groups, 
equal in size and in ability as determined by the grades in 
physics. The material used was uniform, consisting in 
each case of a typewritten lesson in three different forms, 
adapted to the three different methods to be employed. One 
group was taught by the book method, one by the lecture 
method, and one by the laboratory method. Tests were 
given immediately after each lesson, and repeated after one 
week and again in four weeks. The papers were graded 
according to a uniform plan, each lesson having been di- 
vided into a number of important ideas and a group of 
amplifying ideas. The former were given two credits each 
and the latter one credit each. The lessons were so ar- 
ranged that each one had a credit value of 40. In scoring 
the papers, full credit was given for an idea correctly stated 
and half credit for a partially correct statement. By this 
method of scoring each group achieved the following re- 
sults : 

Lesson Immediate One Week Four Weeks Time 

Lecture 1621 1242 1102.5 27.7 min. 

Textbook 16.50 1452.5 1107.5 26.3 " 

Laboratory 1630 1290 1142.5 44 " 

From the foregoing data Wiley drew the following con- 
clusions: 

1. There is no great difference in the three methods so 
far as imparting knowledge is concerned. 

2. "For immediate learning the textbook method is un- 
questionably superior." 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 13 

3. "For permanent learning the laboratory method is 
perhaps slightly superior." 

4. "In every respect the lecture method is least effective 
in imparting knowledge to high-school students." 

5. "Ranking the methods in economy of time, they would 
stand: (1) Textbook, (2) Lecture, (3) Laboratory." 

But the number of subjects in each group in this experi- 
ment was too small to yield reliable results, and the method 
of equalizing the groups was unsatisfactory. (Jour, of Ed. 
Psych. 9: 181-198.) 

The second problem of general method — namely, Is it 
better to follow inductive or deductive methods of teach- 
ing? — has been attacked by Sach and Winch. 

Sack attempted to determine the comparative merits of 
an inductive method of teaching logical fallacies and of the 
formal study of logic. Two groups participated in the ex- 
periment. Group I, three in number, had never studied 
logic ; whereas Group II, five in number, had just completed 
a course in formal logic. The groups were equalized in 
ability oh the basis of their previous school grades and the 
judgment of their instructors. Then Group I was given 
a special drill for about twenty hours in detecting falla- 
cious forms of reasoning. Group II had devoted about 
eighteen hours to this topic in their regular course. After 
the special drill, both groups were tested on forty-five forms 
of logical fallacies. In this test the subjects were asked to 
state with reference to each fallacy: (1) valid or not, (2) 
his reason for calling fallacious any argument so adjudged, 
and (3) the name of the fallacy. On all these points Group 

I excelled Group II, as shown in the following partial sum- 
mary of results : 

Validity Explanation Name 

Group Riciht V. G. Good Right 

Group I 42 24 3.6 22.6 

Group II 35.3 9.8 9.3 2.3 

Sach drew the conclusion that : "The learning of the va- 
rious forms of fallacious reasoning by an essentially induc- 
tive method makes a learner more efficient in the subse- 
quent detection of fallacious reasoning, in the assignment 
of reasons for such fallaciousness, and in the subsumption 
of the fallacies under their proper logical designations, 
than does the formal study of logic as commonly taught in 
university classes." 

Group I may have been favored, however, by the factor 
of recency ; for, apparently, Group I was drilled after Group 

II had completed their work. Furthermore, the method of 
equalizing the groups is very unreliable. Consequently 



14 A Compa7-ative Study of 

much of the superiority of Group I may have been due to 
superior logical ability. Then, too, the number of subjects 
was too small to yield reliable results. (Jour, of Ed. Psych. 
4: 381-392.) 

A more recent and more valuable study of this problem 
is Winch's Inductive versus Deductive Teaching. "The 
main problems were two in number. In the first place, an 
attempt was made to discover which of the two methods 
gave the better results when the children were tested on 
precisely what they had been taught or had learned. In the 
second place, an endeavor was made to find out which of the 
two methods gave the better results when the children were 
tested on new material." 

The pupils of standards 3 to 8 in five different schools of 
London acted as subjects for the experiment. They in- 
cluded both boys and girls, ranging in age from 8 to 15 
years and numbering 193. Each standard was divided into 
two groups, equal in size and in initial achievement, as de- 
termined by preliminary tests in geometrical definition. 
After this division, one group was taught the definitions of 
geometrical forms by the inductive method and the other 
group by the deductive method. Some of the teaching was 
done by the regular teacher, some by the headmaster of a 
participating school, and some by the director of the experi- 
ment. In some instances the director taught the inductive 
group and in other instances the deductive group. Both 
groups were tested for immediate reproduction and for de- 
layed reproduction after one week, and again after approxi- 
mately one month. They were tested, also, on their ability 
to apply the definitions to new material. 

Winch found the deductive groups, on the whole, supe- 
rior in both immediate and delayed reproduction, and the 
inductive groups superior in applying the definitions learned 
to new material. (Winch, W. H., Inductive versus Deduc- 
tive Methods of Teaching.) 

The differences between the two groups, however, are 
too small to be very significant. They may be accounted 
for in part at least by difference in the learning ability of 
the two groups, for no reliable measure of learning ability 
was applied in dividing the pupils into two groups. Other 
variable factors that may have affected the results are: 
(1) difference in teaching ability between the various pairs 
of teachers when both groups were not taught by the same 
teacher, and (2) lack of uniformity in grading the papers. 
Furthermore, the same teacher may be more skillful in in- 
ductive than in deductive teaching, or vice versa. 

In like manner many other problems of method have been 



Directed mid Undirected Teaching 15 

subjected to experimental treatment, which, for the sake 
of reasonable brevity, must be omitted from this review. 
The present discussion is far from exhaustive, but enough 
has been written to indicate the nature and extent of the 
experimental work that has been done in the field of method 
and to exhibit the technique commonly employed by the 
experimenters. 

With respect to method and technique employed in the 
foregoing studies the following criticisms apply generally, 
though not uniformly: 

1. The experiments are too short and the subjects par- 
ticipating in them are too few in number to insure reliable 
results. 

2. In most cases no measures of reliability are applied to 
establish the reliability of data. 

3. Competing groups are not equalized in initial achieve- 
ment and in learning ability, or the method of equalizing 
the groups is unsatisfactory. No mental tests are used as 
a means of determining the learning ability of groups. 

4. The teacher is a variable factor in most of these experi- 
ments, which the experimenter failed to control or to make 
due allowance for. 

Group III: Supervised Study 

Much has been written about supervised study, but the 
experimental literature in the field consists of a few arti- 
cles which will be reviewed briefly in the following pages. 

Breslich ('12) conducted the first important experimental 
investigation in the field of supervised study. For this 
experiment he used as subjects two sections of a class in 
algebra in the University High School of the University of 
Chicago. The two sections were approximately equal in 
achievement in this subject, as indicated by the grades for 
the preceding semester. These grades were distributed as 
follows : 

ABC D F Average 

Section A 25 25 37.5 12.5 0.0 81.4 

Section B 29.4 23.5 23.5 17.7 5.9 79.4 

Section B worked under the divided-period plan of super- 
vised study for fourteen lessons, while Section A followed 
the usual recitation and home-study plan. Section B did all 
the work in the class period of forty-five minutes ; whereas 
Section A devoted approximately two hours to each lesson — 
an hour and fifteen minutes to home study and forty-five 
minutes to the recitation. Upon the completion of the 
fourteenth lesson, the same test was given to both sections, 
with the following results : 



B 


c 


D 


F Average 


21.4 


21.4 





50 62.8 


6.2 


37.5 


25 


31.9 65.5 



16 A Comparative Study of 

A 

Section A 7.1 

Section B 0.0 

Breslich continued the experiment for six more lessons. 
In this part of the experiment Section A worked under the 
supervised-study plan and Section B under the home-study 
and recitation plan. On the final test, which was the same 
for both sections, the comparative gains over the records on 
the previous test were : 

Section A 14.7 

Section B 20.9 

In evaluating his results, Breslich observed : 

1. Supervised study increased the percentage of lower 
grades and decreased the percentage of higher grades. 

2. There was a slight difference in the first part of the 
experiment in favor of the supervised group. 

3. The supervised group made more progress in learning 
to work independently. (School Review, 20: 505-515.) 

Breslich's conclusions, however, were drawn from a 
meager amount of data. The whole experiment comprised 
only twenty lessons in algebra, with two sections of one 
class' acting as subjects. The number of pupils participat- 
ing in the experiment is not stated ; but it is certain that 
the number was small, since only two sections of one class 
were employed. Furthermore, it is required statistically 
that the difference between two means be at least twice the 
probable error of the difference to be regarded as signifi- 
cant. More conservative practice demands that this dif- 
ference be four times the probable error of the difference. 
This test was not applied to determine the reliability of the 
difference in means. Since this difference was only 2.7% 
for the first fourteen lessons, one may well doubt whether 
there was any significant difference in the two groups. 
Moreover, in the second part of the experiment, compris- 
ing six of the twenty lessons, the unsupervised group, for- 
merly the supervised group, made a greater gain over its 
previous record than did the supervised group. Breslich 
attributed this superiority of the unsupervised group in 
the last part of the experiment to the effect of the supervi- 
sion in the first part persisting in the second part of the 
experiment. But the fact that this particular group, 
whether supervised or unsupervised, made the greater 
gains in both periods of the experiment leads one to suspect 
that its superiority was due to some factor other than su- 
pervision — perhaps to greater initial ability. The accep- 
tance of the latter explanation, which seems equally as 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 17 

plausible as the former, would cast discredit on the whole 
experiment, for this difference in learning ability would 
be sufficient to account for the small difference between the 
two groups. 

Mimiich ('13) conducted an experiment designed to test 
the value of supervised study in plane geometry. The sub- 
jects were thirty-six pupils in the high school of Blooming- 
ton, Ind. They were divided in two groups of equal size 
and of approximately equal ability on the basis of the grades 
made in algebra for the three previous semesters. These 
students were just beginning their work in plane geometry. 
One group worked under a supervised-study plan and the 
other under the ordinary recitation plan. The unsuper- 
vised group prepared their lessons at home and recited dur- 
ing the first class period ; the supervised group recited the 
second class period, remaining the third period to prepare 
the work for the next day. If any student completed the 
assignment before the end of the study period, additional 
work was provided for him. An effort was made to teach 
the pupils how to study. They were free to call for help in 
the study period, but help was given in the form of ques- 
tions and suggestions. Records were kept of the grades 
on the daily recitations and of the number of recitations 
made weekly by each group, and curves were plotted based 
upon these records. Tests were given at the close of the 
first and second six weeks, covering the work done in these 
periods. At the end of the semester a final test was given 
on the work of the whole semester. Occasionally during 
the progress of the experiment tests were given on new 
material. The same test, in every instance, was given to 
both groups. With the exception of the final test, the quan- 
tity of work did not affect the grade, for the papers were 
graded only on the quality of the work done. All the pa- 
pers were graded by the instructor, but they were arranged 
so that he did not know whose paper he was grading. 

Minnich found that, on the basis of the weekly averages, 
the supervised group had the higher averages for ten weeks, 
the same for three weeks, and lower for two weeks. In the 
fifteen weeks the supervised group made 466 recitations,, 
while the unsupervised group made only 352. The two 
groups made the following records on the tests : 

Supervised Unsupervised Difference 

First six weeks 77.3% 68.7% 8.6% 

Second six weeks 81.2% 80.4% .8% 

Final test 92.4% 80.1% 12.3% 

On the tests on new material the supervised class aver- 



18 A Comparative Study of 

aged 13.1% more than the unsupervised class. All the pu- 
pils in the supervised group passed, but two of the unsu- 
pervised group failed. 

The foregoing experiment extended over a period of 
fifteen weeks, which is probably a sufficient length of time 
to produce important results. The two classes were com- 
parable in size, and perhaps also in ability, although semes- 
ter grades are an unreliable measure of ability. The com- 
parisons were made on the basis of the weekly averages of 
grades made in the daily recitations, the number of recita- 
tions made per week, and the average scores on the special 
tests devised by the teacher. But teachers' marks have been 
found to be extremely variable, and consequently unreliable 
measures of progress. The investigations of Kelly, Starch 
and Elliott, and Johnson furnish convincing evidence of the 
unreliability of the marks assigned by teachers. (See 
Kelly, F. J., Teachers' Marks; School Review, 20: 442-457; 
19: 13-24; 21: 254-259; 21: 676-681.) Moreover, compar- 
ative scores are often influenced largely by the teacher's 
attitude. A teacher who believes in supervised study will 
do better teaching with the supervised group, and may un- 
consciously favor this group in the grading of papers. In 
view of these facts, Minnich's results cannot be accepted 
at their face value. Moreover, his statistical treatment of 
his data is inadequate, for he failed to apply any measures 
of reliability. Furthermore, his report does not provide 
sufficient data to enable one to apply the measures of relia- 
bilitv and thus estimate his work. (School Review, 21: 
670-675.) 

Grace A. Dunn ('17) conducted an experiment in super- 
vised study in language, using as subjects the pupils of the 
fourth grade in a town system near New York City. The 
pupils, numbering twenty-two, were divided into two sec- 
tions, known as A and B, of equal size and of approximately 
equal ability, as determined by the scores on the Trabue 
and Thorndike Tests in Language. Both sections were 
given twenty lessons of thirty minutes each. They had the 
same assignment and the same amount of time for study; 
but the study of Section A was closely supervised, while 
Section B was left to its own resources in preparing each 
lesson. At the close of each week the pupils were tested 
and rated on their work for the week. The tests were the 
same for both sections. The general average of these rat- 
ings for the four weeks gave the following results : 

Section A, the supervised group_ 85% 

Section B, the unsupervised group 43% 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 19 

On the basis of these averages, Miss Dunn concluded that 
there was a decided difference in favor of supervised study ; 
but she failed to use any measures of reliability, and her 
method of grading was not clear. It appears, however, 
from her description of her grading that her ratings were 
based upon tests and exercises making a heavy demand 
upon judgment. For example, in speaking of the work of 
the first week, she states: "In rating the work, the teacher 
considered the organization, originality, clarity of expres- 
sion, and general appearance of the reproduction work, and 
the intelligent appreciation and interest which should have 
been the outcome of the study of the poems." Now, it is 
obvious that the foregoing factors could not be rated with a 
reasonable degree of accuracy. Consequently allowance 
must be made for large errors in grading. Moreover, there 
is nothing to indicate that the teacher made any attempt to 
maintain an unbiased attitude in conducting the experi- 
ment. On the contrary, from reading the report, one gets 
the impression that she slighted the work of the unsuper- 
vised section and put forth every effort to achieve unusual 
results with the supervised section. The very low general 
average of the unsupervised section confirms this impres- 
sion. Again, all measures of reliability are omitted. Only 
average scores are included in the report. Obviously, ex- 
periments conducted in this manner have little, if any, sci- 
entific value. (Teachers' College Record, Vol. 18: 430- 
437.) 

Breed ('19) conducted an experiment to determine the 
value of the divided or double-period plan of supervised 
study. He used as subjects thirty-four classes in Latin, 
Algebra, and English composition from fourteen different 
high schools. Satisfactory records were obtained from 596 
pupils. 

Definite and detailed directions in mimeographed form 
were placed in the hands of the principals and teachers co- 
operating in the experiment. Two plans were outlined, 
either of which a school might follow. 

Plan I provided for one teacher to teach two sections 
approximately equal in size and ability as determined by 
preliminary tests devised by the teacher or by the mid- 
year marks in the subject chosen for the experiment. These 
sections were known as Section A and Section B. Section 
A was taught by a supervised-study plan for six weeks, and 
Section B by the usual recitation plan. Both sections had 
the same length of period and covered the same subject- 
matter both in kind and amount. Thus the work continued 
for six weeks ; then both sections were given the same semi- 



20 A Comparative Study of 

final test devised by the teacher. The procedure was then 
reversed by teaching Section B according to the supervised- 
study plan, and Section A by the usual recitation plan. 
Again, both sections covered the same subject-matter and 
took the same final test devised by the teacher. All the 
test papers were scored first by the teacher; then they 
were sent to the Educational Laboratory of the University 
of Michigan and scored by a competent grader selected by 
the director of the experiment on the basis of special fit- 
ness and paid for his services. The same grader in every 
case scored all the papers of the two comparable classes. 
The average of the teacher's grades and the laboratory 
grades was taken as the true score. 

Plan II required two teachers, known as X and Y, and 
two sections, known as Section A and Section B. Teacher 
X taught Section A by the supervised-study plan for six 
weeks, while Teacher Y taught Section B by the usual reci- 
tation plan. After the semifinal test, which was devised 
by the teachers in cooperation and was the same for both 
sections, the teachers exchanged sections for the final pe- 
riod of the experiment. At the close of the second period 
the same final test, devised by the teachers in cooperation, 
was administered to both sections. All the scoring was 
done in the same manner as in Plan I. 

All but one school chose Plan I, probably because this plan 
could be more readily adjusted to existing school conditions. 
A list of suggestions designed to embody the theory and 
practice of the divided-time scheme of supervised study was 
placed in the hands of each cooperating teacher. These 
suggestions emphasized particularly the following factors : 

Individualizing instruction ; 

Directing the pupil's efforts ; 

Helping the pupil judiciously; 

Teaching the pupil how to study ; 

Increasing the importance of the assignment ; 

Special attention to the lowest third of the class ; 

Providing extra work for the highest third ; 

Decreasing the amount of home study. 
In general, the teachers were directed to proceed in the 
following manner : 

"The pupils have begun to work. The getting-ready 
process must be prompt and precise, with a minimum of 
noise. No questions are permitted audibly, but by raising 
the hand the pupil indicates a desire to consult the teachers, 
who pass quietly to the pupil's desk. The pupil and teacher 
in whispers confer on the diflficulty. When not so occu- 
pied, the teacher moves quietly up and down the aisles, stop- 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 21 

ping at each desk to inspect each pupil's work. When she 
finds a pupil employing a wrong method, she stops and in a 
low tone asks why he uses this method. She always re- 
quries the pupil to give a reason for what he does. The 
pupil is expected to make his own corrections with mini- 
mum of suggestion from the teacher. When absolutely nec- 
essary to do so, she will give the required information." 

Furthermore, each teacher was provided a mimeographed 
copy of Whipple's Rules for Study to be used in teaching 
the pupils how to study. 

Comparisons were made on the basis of both coyitinuous 
and more strictly comparable groups. The continuous 
groups were composed of all the pupils present for all the 
tests. The strictly comparable groups were selected from 
the continuous groups in such a manner that the groups to 
be compared were of the same size, matched individually in 
ability, and equal, therefore, in average ability. Moreover, 
these comparable groups were taught by the same teachers 
and belonged to classes of approximately equal enrollment. 
Averages were computed: (1) on the basis of the teachers' 
scores, (2) on the basis of the laboratory scores, and (3) 
on the basis of the combined scores. But the final judg- 
ments were based on the combined scores, and the progress 
of the various classes was measured by the increases in the 
average scores. The results obtained by Breed are sum- 
marized in Table I. 

TABLE I 

Showing the Average Percentage of Gains and Losses for the 
Continuous and Comparable Groups 

Peircentage of Gain or Loss 
No. of Pairs Preliminary Semifinnl 

Subject of Classes to Semifinal to Final 

Continuous Groups 

Algebra 7 —0.2 —5.3 

Latin 2 9.0 7.1 

English Composition 2 — 4.4 — 3.9 

Comparable Groups 

Algebra 7 1.0 2.7 

Latin 2 3.7 5.4 

English Composition 2 — 3.8 — 6.1 

In this table the percentages are all in terms of super- 
vised study, and each represents loss or gain in a particu- 
lar subject and for one period of the experiment. If the 
percentage is plus, it means that supervised study proved 
to be superior; if it is minus, it means that supervised study 
proved to be inferior to the usual recitation plan. 



22 A Comparative Study of 

In the three subjects the poorer pupils gained on the 
average 3.4%, and the better pupils lost 5.7%. 

Breed was unwilling to hazard an interpretation of his 
data, but he expressed his opinion to the effect that : 

"Supervised study of the kind tested facilitated the prog- 
ress of the poorer pupils, and to a correspondingly greater 
degree retarded the progress of the better pupils." 

"Until the divided- and double-period plans meet the ob- 
jections urged against them, a selective or differential 
plan of study supervision should be favored by secondary 
schools — that is, a plan which concentrates on the pupils of 
less ability." 

"The technique of supervising the poorer pupils needs to 
be improved ; a technique of supervising the study of the 
brighter pupils needs to be developed." 

The foregoing experiment is by far the most extensive 
and valuable of all that have appeared in this field. The 
method of conducting the experiment is as scientific as it 
could well be made under real school conditions. An at- 
tempt is made to control the variable factor of the teacher 
by providing for an exchange of teachers at the middle of 
the period or for one teacher to teach both sections. The 
essential conclusions, however, are based largely on central 
tendencies, which, taken alone, are inadequate measures of 
group progress. All measures of reliability are omitted, 
and not enough data are provided to enable one to apply 
these measures and thus determine the validity of the re- 
sults. The advisability of exchanging groups at the mid- 
dle of the period may well be doubted, for this allowed only 
six weeks for any one group to work under supervised 
study. It is probable that six weeks is too short a time to 
produce any marked differences in such subjects as algebra, 
Latin, and English composition. Further, the experiment 
deals with only one type of supervised study, and the in- 
structions to the teachers indicate that , the supervision 
tested consists largely of better assignments and more in- 
dividual help, particularly for the poorer pupils. Then, 
too, there is no statement to the effect that the teachers 
cooperating in the experiment had any special training in 
the theory and technique of supervised study previous to 
their participation in this experiment. On the other hand, 
no doubt, they had considerable training for the ordinary 
recitation plan. It is apparent that this lack of training, 
if present, would place the supervised study group at a con- 
siderable disadvantage. This experiment, therefore, should 
not be accepted as final, even with respect to the type of 
supervision tested ; rather it indicates, as Breed points out, 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 23 

that the technique of supervising study needs to be devel- 
oped and improved. (School Review, 27: 186-204 and 262- 
284.) 

From the foregoing studies it is obvious that direction of 
the pupil's study has not up to this time yielded any very 
valuable results, but the data in the field are meager and 
unreliable. There is urgent need for more experimental 
investigations of supervised study, and for a refinement of 
the technique of directing the learning activities of pupils. 

A very recent study, which cannot properly be classified 
in any of the preceding groups, is Pit?nan's The Value of 
School Supervision. The problem of this study is very sim- 
ilar to the problem of the present investigation. Pitman 
undertakes to measure the value of school supervision on 
the basis of quantitative data. His specific problem is : 
"What is the effect of supervision upon the work of rural 
schools when the supervision is done according to the Zone 
Plan?" The Zone Plan is defined as: "A plan of supervi- 
sion in which the supervisor divides his entire supervisory 
district into territorial limits, each of which serves as the 
territorial limits for one week of supervisory effort." 

Two groups of schools located in Brown County, S. D., 
were selected for this experiment. The supervisory zone, 
constituting the experimental group, was composed of fif- 
teen schoolrooms, and the control group of twenty-five 
schoolrooms. The two groups of schools were approxi- 
mately equal in the length of the school terms and the social 
and economic status of the communities. With respect to 
years of training beyond the eighth grade and years of ex- 
perience in teaching, the two groups of teachers compared 
as follows : 

Training Experience 
M'-dian Median 

Experimental Group 4.2 2 

Control Group 4.36 2.33 

In the matter of certification the experimental group had 
a slight advantage, as shown by the following figures : 

First-Grade Second-Grade 
' Percentage Pcrcey^tatje 

Experimental Group 46 54 

Control Group 36 64 

All the pupils in grades 3 to 8 in the experimental group 
of schools, numbering 114, were used as subjects. On the 
basis of the scores made on standard tests in reading, spell- 
ing, composition, handwriting, and arithmetic, a group of 
114 pupils were selected from the larger control group, num- 



24 A Comparative Study of 

bering 225, which was approximately equal to the experi- 
mental group. 

Both groups were given the same initial standard tests be- 
tween September 28 and October 10, 1919. The tests were ad- 
ministered by the director of the experiment and three com- 
petent assistants, the same persons testing the same schools 
in both the initial and final tests. The scoring was all done 
by members of the classes in tests and measurements in the 
normal school at Aberdeen, working under the direction of 
their teacher, Miss Ivy Husband. A different group of 
students scored the final tests from that which scored the 
initial tests, but the second group worked under the direc- 
tion of Miss Husband, as did the first group. The final 
tests were given between May 3 and May 14, 1920, and in 
the same order as the initial tests. 

The supervisor spent one week each month in making a 
tour of his zone. On these tours special emphasis was 
placed on two general types of work — namely, the super- 
vision of instruction and the stimulation of the social and 
economic life of the community. 

The activities which had for their immediate purpose the 
improvement of the character of the school work comprised : 

1. Making a calendar for the events of the year, show- 
ing the dates of the various tours, with the special work of 
each tour, and the time and place of the group meetings for 
the teachers of the zone. 

2. Writing a supervisory letter to each teacher in the 
zone, about one week in advance of each tour, announcing 
the llr.ie of the supervisor's visit and indicating the sub- 
jects that would be emphasized on the tour. 

3. Visiting the teachers once each month in their class- 
rooms and observing the work of a few classes. On these 
visits the supervisor took brief notes on the lessons observed 
and made short talks to the pupils. The conferences with 
the teachers on these visits were usually brief, dealing only 
with matters of local and immediate importance. 

4. Holding group teachers' meetings, consisting of the 
following activities : 

(1) A teaching demonstration by the supervisor. 

(2) A conference based upon this demonstration. 

(3) Teaching demonstrations by two classroom teachers. 

(4) A conference based upon these demonstrations. 

(5) A summary discussion of the subject under investi- 
gation. 

(6) The giving to the teachers of a list of suggestions for 
their guidance for the next month. These suggestions dealt 
with the teaching of one subject, and contained a list of 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 25 

books from which the teachers were to select books to be 
read during the month. 

In order to stimulate the community life, and thus win 
for the school a more intelligent and whole-hearted support, 
activities were carried on along the following lines : 

1. Visits in the homes of the people, the aim being to eat 
a meal or sleep at the home of every child in the zone. 
About 50% of the homes in the zone were reached in these 
visits. 

2. The school newspaper for the zone, containing news 
items, the aims for the year's work, the result of the initial 
survey, and the account of the teachers' meetings. 

3. Social phases of the teachers' meetings. To these 
meetings the people of the community came and brought 
their dinners. The afternoon was devoted to the pleasure 
and inspiration of the community. 

4. Health and happiness meetings, in which important 
health subjects were discussed by competent speakers. 

5. Spelling matches for socializing purposes and to pro- 
vide practice in spelling certain agricultural terms and 
words which every one should know how to spell. 

6. A crusade against gophers, organized and conducted 
by the school. 

The progress of the two groups of pupils was measured 
in terms of improvement as shown by the scores on the 
initial and final tests. Pitman found that the median prog- 
ress of the experimental group, when expressed in terms of 
the progress of the control group, was 193.75%. By the 
equated difference method he found that it would take the 
control group .942 of a year to reach the point of improve- 
ment attained by the experimental group. 

The results, therefore, show a decided advantage in favor 
of the supervised group. But one does not know which of 
the agencies employed was of most value in producing the 
results. There is need for experimentation to determine 
the value of each of the agencies that are commonly em- 
ployed in supervision. The present investigation is de- 
voted to the study of one of these agencies — namely, di- 
rected teaching. 

II. Statement of the Problem 

Does the supervision of instruction increase to any ap- 
preciable degree the efficiency of teaching? Can the ef- 
fectiveness of supervision be measured quantitatively? 
This study undertakes to answer these questions for one 
particular phase of supervision, which may be designated 
as directed teaching. The specific problem may be stated 



26 A Comparative Study of 

thus: How effective are definite directions as a device for 
the supervision of instruction? 

Directed teaching, as used throughout this study, refers 
to that particular type of supervision in which the teacher 
and the supervisor, in cooperation, devise a specific plan 
for the direction of the work of a class in a particular sub- 
ject. Then the teacher instructs the class according to this 
plan. In the meantime the supervisor keeps closely enough 
in touch with the class to be able to offer helpful suggestions 
from time to time and to make constructive criticisms of 
the teacher's work. 



CHAPTER II 

THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE STUDY 

This investigation attempts to determine the value of 
directed teaching by measuring the progress of comparable 
groups of pupils, one group working under a directed-teach- 
ing plan and the other without any such plan. The experi- 
ments have been conducted, however, under the usual school 
conditions. Consequently many compromises have been 
necessary between the precision of science and the limita- 
tions of school conditions, for, under school conditions, it is 
not possible, as a rule, to control rigidly all the factors that 
may affect the results. Nevertheless, an effort has been 
made to control these factors as far as possible, and to 
make note of all the variable ones so that due allowance may 
be made for them in interpreting the results. Two gen- 
eral plans have been followed in conducting the experi- 
ments, which may be outlined briefly as follows : 

Plan I 

1. Two teachers, equal, as nearly as possible, in teaching 
ability. 

2. Two grades, known as A and B, and approximately 
equal in size, ability, and initial achievement in the subject. 

3. The initial achievement of the two grades, to be deter- 
mined by standard tests administered by the principal or by 
the writer, all the scoring being done by the writer. 

4. One teacher directs the work of Grade A according to 
a directed-teaching plan, devised in cooperation with the 
writer. The other teacher instructs Grade B, relying upon 
her own resources and the help given by the regular super- 
visory force. Aside from the specific directions placed in 
the hands of the one teacher, both are subject to approxi- 
mately the same amount and kind of supervision. 

5. Both grades cover the same subject-matter, both in 
kind and amount. 

6. The progress of the two grades is compared on the 
basis of the scores made on the standard tests given again 
at the close of the experiment. These tests are adminis- 
tered and scored in the same way as the initial tests. 

Plan II 

1. One teacher. 

2. Two sections of the same grade or high-school class, 
known as Section A and Section B, approximately equal in 



28 A Comparative Study of 

size, mental ability, and initial achievement, as determined 
by standard tests or special tests devised by the teacher. 

3. The teacher directs the work of Section A according 
to a directed-teaching plan, and teaches Section B, follow- 
ing her accustomed method. 

4. Both sections cover the same subject-matter, both in 
kind and amount. 

5. Both sections are given the same tests again at the 
close of the experiment, and the progress of the two groups 
compared on the basis of these scores. 

6. In case tests devised by the teachers are used, three 
tests are given on different days, and the average made on 
the three tests taken as the true score. The questions used 
in these tests call for definite answers, so that they can be 
graded with a fair degree of accuracy. They are graded 
first by the teacher, then by the writer, and the average of 
the two ratings taken as the true score. 

A Specific Plan for Each Experiment 

Each teacher working under direction devised, in cooper- 
ation with the writer, a specific plan for the direction of 
her group. An attempt was made to embody in these plans 
the best available knowledge of how to teach and study the 
subject under consideration. To this end constant refer- 
ence was made to the best books, and to original investiga- 
tions dealing with the learning of the subject. For exam- 
ple, the plan for directing the teaching of handwriting was 
based largely on the following : 

Freeman, F. N., The Teaching of Handwriting. 

Freeman, F. N., The Handwriting Movement. 

Monroe, W. S., Measuring the Results of Teaching. 

Nutt, H. W., Rhythm in Handwriting (Ele. Sch. Jour., 
17: 432-45), 

Graves, S, M., A Study in Handwriting (Journal of Edu- 
cational Psychology, 7: 483-494). 

Freeman, F. N., Practical Studies of Handwriting (Ele- 
mentary School Teacher, 14: 167-179). 

The plans for other subjects were based upon similar 
sources. In order that the reader may know more definitely 
the nature of the specific directions given to the teachers, a 
number of these plans will be reported in full in the discus- 
sions of the experiments in the next chapter. 

It is freely admitted that these plans for directing the 
teaching are imperfect. They represent in each case what 
the cooperating teacher and the writer judged to be the best 
practice in the eff'ective direction of a class. In so far as 
they fail to embody the best practice, the effect would be to 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 29 

reduce somewhat the final scores of the pupils working un- 
der the directed teachers. 

Variable Factors 

1. The Teacher. — In both the foregoing general plans the 
teacher is a variable factor. It is highly improbable that 
any pair of cooperating teachers in any one experiment 
would be exactly equal in teaching ability, or that they 
would teach with an equal degree of interest and enthu- 
siasm throughout the experiment. Furthermore, it seems 
to the writer just as improbable that any teacher would 
teach two sections or classes with an equal degree of effi- 
ciency and at the same time follow an essentially different 
method with each group. In fact, the teachers working 
under Plan II (see page 27) confessed their inability to 
keep the two methods distinct, although they made an ef- 
fort to follow instructions implicitly. 

In selecting teachers to cooperate in the experiment, how- 
ever, care was taken to avoid favoring constantly either the 
directed or undirected group. Teachers had to be selected, 
in part, on the basis of their willingness to participate in 
the experiments ; but, as far as possible, teachers holding 
similar positions in the same school were paired one against 
the other. This arrangement provided for approximately 
equal help from the regular supervisory force. It was 
found to be impracticable, under school conditions, to equal- 
ize the factors of education and experience, because teach- 
ers holding similar positions in the same school system vary 
widely in their preparation and experience. These factors, 
however, should have due consideration in estimating the 
comparative efficiency of teachers. 

But the reliability of education and experience as meas- 
ures of teaching efficiency is still an open question. After 
studying 504 cases, Meriam came to the conclusion that: 
"After the first year the amount of experience is not an im- 
portant criterion for efficient teaching in the elementary 
schools." In this study the teachers were given an effi- 
ciency rating by their principals, which was based largely 
upon subjective factors. On the basis of an extended study 
of the relation of length of service to efficiency in teaching, 
Coffman came to a similar conclusion — namely: "These ta- 
bles and graphs accompanying them certainly justify the 
conclusion that experience does not contribute much to the 
efficiency of the public school teacher." Similarly, Coff- 
man found no uniform tendency existing between the 
amount of salary received and education beyond the ele- 
mentary school. His essential conclusions on this point 



30 A Comparative Study of 

were: (1) "The first four years of training beyond the 
elementary schools have little or no effect on salary; (2) 
correlation between salary and education becomes increas- 
ingly marked with' each succeeding year after the fourth 
year." Using the salaries received by men in the private 
secondary schools of five cities as a measure of efficiency in 
teaching, Thorndike found that the full effect of the expe- 
rience in teaching in private secondary schools is reached 
in three years. For the full text of these investigations, 
see: 

Meriam, J. L., Normal School Education and Efficiency 
in Teaching. 

Coffman, L. D., The Social Composition of the Teaching 
Population. 

Thorndike, E. L., The Teaching Staff of Secondary 
Schools in the United States (Bureau of Education Bulle- 
tin, 1909, No. 4). 

These studies, then, indicate that experience after the 
first three years does not contribute much to eflficiency in 
teaching. They suggest, also, that education, particularly 
beyond the elementary school, is a more reliable measure 
of teaching efficiency than is years of experience. These 
facts should be kept in mind in considering the comparative 
efficiency of the various pairs of teachers cooperating in 
the various experiments of this study. The data bearing 
on the efficiency of teachers will be presented in connection 
with the report of each experiment. 

2. The Pupils. — The pupils participating in these experi- 
ments constitute a second variable factor. An effort was 
made to select groups of pupils that would be comparable 
in size, in mental ability, and in initial achievement in the 
subject ; but it was not possible, under the limitations im- 
posed by school conditions, to arrange strictly comparable 
groups. An attempt was made, however, to determine the 
native ability and initial achievement of each group by em- 
ploying the devices described in the following paragraphs : 

(1) Native Ability. — In most cases the group intelli- 
gence tests were used to determine native ability. These 
tests were employed particularly in the groups that were 
to study the subjects that have been found to have a marked 
correlation with general intelligence. In subjects, such as 
handwriting, which have been found to have only a very 
low correlation with general intelligence, secondary meas- 
ures have been employed — namely, average age and social 
composition of the pupils. 

(2) Initial Achievement. — Initial achievement was de- 
termined in each case by preliminary tests, which were the 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 31 

same for groups to be compared. The standard tests were 
used in all cases, if such tests were available. If such tests 
were not available, special tests devised by the teacher were 
substituted for the standard tests. The questions used in 
these special tests were so framed that definite answers 
were required, and a set of directions for scoring the pa- 
pers were written out, thus securing reasonable uniformity 
in grading the test papers. A certain number of points 
was allotted to each correct answer and partial credit for 
incomplete answers as designated in the written directions 
for scoring the papers. Each pupil was given a definite 
rating on this point scale. Three fifteen-minute tests were 
given to each group on three successive days, and the aver- 
age score on the three tests taken as the true score for each 
pupil. 

Finally, in order to minimize still further the influence 
of the teacher in determining class scores through the man- 
ner of giving the tests and scoring the papers, the initial 
and final tests were given by the writer or the principal of 
the school. Moreover, all the papers were graded by one 
other competent grader, and the average score taken as the 
true score. 

In general, an attempt was made to plan the experiments 
so that neither of the groups to be compared would be fa- 
vored constantly by the factors that could not be rigidly 
controlled. Each experiment will be reported separately 
in the following chapter, and any significant variations 
from the general plans outlined in the present chapter will 
be noted in these separate reports. 

In each of the frequency curves of the following chapter 
the horizontal line indicates, by intervals, the scores made 
on the test, and the vertical line indicates the number of 
pupils making each score. In plotting the frequency curves, 
it is assumed that all the scores in any interval are concen- 
trated at the mid-point of that interval. Consequently the 
height of the curve at any mid-point shows the number of 
pupils falling in that interval. 

In each graph the solid line represents the group taught 
by the directed teachers, and the broken line the group 
taught by the undirected teachers. In each table, or fre- 
quency distribution, the A-groups are the directed groups 
and the B-groups the undirected. 

The terms directed and undirected are applied conven- 
iently, to the respective groups of pupils as well as to the 
teachers. A directed group, for example, means a group 
taught by a directed teacher ; an undirected group, one 
taught by an undirected teacher. 



CHAPTER III 

THE EXPERIMENTS 

The present chapter is devoted to a presentation of the 
experiments, all of which were performed in the school 
years of 1919-1920 and 1920-1921. Each experiment is ac- 
corded a separate and detailed treatment, then all the re- 
sults are brought together in summary form in the final 
chapter. 

All the following experiments have the same aim — 
namely, to determine whether directed teaching is more 
effective thayi undirected teaching. Since this is the aim 
of all the experiments, it need not be repeated in the report 
of each experiment. 

Experiment 1 

The Fundamental Operations of Arithmetic 

The Subjects. — The subjects for this experiment con- 
sisted of forty-five pupils from the fifth grade of a small 
town school. They were divided into two sections, known 
as Section A and Section B, numbering twenty-three and 
twenty-two, respectively. With respect to age and nation- 
ality, the two sections were nearly equal, as shown by the 
following comparison : 

Per Cent of 
Av. Age A.D. Native Parentage 

Section A 11.28 . 1.09 100 

Section B 11.15 .73 95 

On Monroe's Standardized Reasoning Test in Arithmetic 
the two sections made the following scores : 

Correct Principle Correct Answer 

Section A 18.5, P. E. 4.5 10.5, P. E. 2.8 

Section B 18.7, P. E. 4.9 11.5, P. E. 3.0 

Difference .2 1.0 

P. E. of Difference 1.4 .87 

The two sections, therefore, were approximately equal 
in the ability to solve problems, with a slight advantage in 
favor of Section B. 

The Teacher. — Two teachers, known as X and Y, cooper- 
ated in this experiment. These teachers were holding sim- 
ilar positions in the school system and were both receiving 
the same salary. Teacher X was a normal-school graduate, 
with one year of experience in teaching; while Teacher Y 
had only an elementary-school education, with two summer 
terms of special training for intermediate-grade teaching, 
and had eight years of experience in teaching. In so far as 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 33 

teaching ability can be measured in terms of salary, edu- 
cation, and years of experience, it would seem that Teacher 
X had a slight advantage over Teacher Y, having had about 
five years in school beyond the elementary school. On the 
other hand. Teacher Y had a considerable advantage from 
the standpoint of years of experience. 

Method of Procedure. — This experiment was conducted 
according to Plan I. (See page 27.) The whole group was 
given the Courtis Standard Tests, Series B, and Monroe's 
Standardized Reasoning Tests in Arithmetic. These tests 
were administered and scored by the principal of the school. 
On the basis of the scores made on these tests the group 
was divided into two sections approximately equal in size 
and initial achievement. After this division. Teacher X 
taught Section A, following a directed-teaching plan, and 
Teacher Y taught Section B, following her accustomed plan. 

The following written directions were placed in the hands 
of the teacher directing Section A, the directed-teaching 
group : 

1. Provide a twelve-minute daily practice period. 

2. Use as practice material the Studebaker Practice Ex- 
ercises. 

3. Read carefully the Teachers' Manual for the Stude- 
baker Exercises and follow the instructions found therein. 

4. At the beginning of the experiment inform each pupil 
of his standing in comparison with the standards and with 
the other members of the class. 

5. Lead each pupil to set up definite standards to be at- 
tained by the end of the experiment. 

Teacher Y taught Section B in her usual way, using for 
practice the textbook material and special material pre- 
pared from day to day. She was fully aware of the nature 
of the experiment, and put forth every effort to achieve 
good results with her class. This section, also, had twelve 
minutes daily for practice. 

The experiment continued for a period of six weeks. At 
the end of this time the principal of the school gave to both 
sections the Courtis Standard Tests, using the same form 
as in the initial test, and scored and tabulated the results. 

Results. — In tabulating the results, the records of all the 
pupils were eliminated who were not present for both the 
initial and final tests. Only two records, however, had to 
be eliminated from Section A and two from Section B. 
This left twenty-one records in Section A to be compared 
with twenty in Section B. The two sections were still ap- 
proximately equal in attempts, but Section B was slightly 



34 



A Comparative Study of 



superior in rights. In subtraction and multiplication Sec- 
tion B showed considerable superiority in rights. 

How the two groups compare on the initial and final tests 
is shown in the following tables and graphs : 







TABLE II 








Showing the 


Relative Acj 


hievement of 
Initial Test 

attempts 


THE Two 


Sectio 


NS ON THE 


Section A 

Section B 

Difference _-. 
P. E. of D.__ 


Addition 
Med. P. E. 
.__ 5.5 1.3 

-_ 6.3 1.7 
.-_— .8 

--_ .47 


Subtraction 
Med. P. E. 
7.9 2.4 
6.8 .8 

1.1 

.53 


Multiplication 
Med. P. E. 

5.4 1.1 

4.5 1.1 
.9 

.34 


rivisioN 

Med. P. E. 

3.9 1.2 
3.8 1.0 

.1 

.34 


Section A 

Section B 

Difference __. 
P. E. of D.__ 


--_ 2.6 1.2 
.__ 2.9 1.8 
-__— .3 

_-_ .48 


rights 
2.9 2.5 
5.0 1.6 
—2.1 

1.28 


2.3 
3.5 
—1.2 
.93 


1.3 

1.4 


1.5 1.6 

1.6 .8 
— .1 

.93 



The probable errors (P. E.'s) are all computed by the 
formula: P. E. equals 0.6745 times the square root of the 
sum of the deviations squared, divided by the number of 
measures, minus one, or .6745 sigma. 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 



35 





Addition 
At. Rt. 


Subtraction 
At. Rt. 


Multiplication 
At. Rt. 


Division 
At. Rt. 


8 






































7 




\ 




u' ■ ■ " 
















/ / V. 


M 












6 

5 
4 


c 


? \ 

\ ^ \ 
\ \ - -\ - 
\ \ \ 

\ \ 


/ / ' 
I J ' 
111 

/ /' 
1 ' 


\ \ \ 

— L .\. : 
\ \ 

--W 




A----\ 


p 




-- 




\\ 


il 








v-"/^ 






3 




\ \ 


ij 








f"Y' 




-- 














/ 


















) 


— V" 

\\ 




2 
















\\ 


%■ 


1 


























































Figure 1 — Showing the relative attainment of the two sections on the initial test. 
The curves are based on the median scores. 



o 



-(^ Section A 



o 

Q_ _ _ _ _ Q_ _ _ - -Q Section B 
Standard Scores 



36 



A Comparative Study of 



TABLE III 

Showing the Relative Median Attainment of the Two Sections 
ON THE Final Test 



Addition 
Med. P. E. 
1.8 
1.3 



ATTEMPTS 

Subtraction 
Med. P. E. 



Multiplication 
Med. P. E. 



Division 
Med. P. E. 



Section A 8.5 

Section B 6.0 

Difference 2.5 

P. E, of D .48 



7.6 
7.5 

.1 

.41 

RIGHTS 



1.4 
1.3 



Section A 5.4 

Section B 3.7 

Difference 1.7 

P. E. of D .51 



1.8 
1.5 



5.6 
5.3 



1.9 
1.6 



.54 



6.4 

5.7 
.7 
.36 



3.4 
4.7 
-1.3 
.43 



1.3 
1.0 



1.3 
1.5 



7.3 
5.0 
2.3 

.54 



4.8 
2.6 
2.2 

.57 



1.9 
1.6 



2.0 
1.7 



Addition 
At. Rt. 



Subtraction 
At. Rt. 



Multiplication 
At. Rt. 



Division 
At. Rt. 



y 




















8 








































K 


) 
















7 








N 
















\\ 




Y 






\ 






b 








\V 






1 
1 


^ 




o 


__( 


v r 


xf^,"? 


x\\ 


y-"^ 




1 

1 I 
I-S. 


\ 
^ ., 


_i.4 


4 


... 




/ 






1 If 
---l-f- 

1 1 


\--^^ 




3 


... 




) 






V 


in 
■r/j 


--\\ 


•» 
















\ 




















\ 


^ 


\ 


















J 








"* 















Figure 2. — Showing the relative attainment of the two sections on the final test. 
The curves are based on the median scores. (See Table III.) 



"O O Section A 



o 

O _ ~ Q- Q Section B 

— . — — ' Standard Scores 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 



37 



TABLE IV 

Distribution of Total Attempts and Total Rights on Both the 
Initial and Final Tests 

initial test final test 

attempts rights attempts rights 

Score 5A 5B 5A 5B 5A 5B 5A 5B 

39-41 

36-38 3 

33-35 1 4 1 

30-32 12 1 4 2 2 

27-29 1 2 3 3 

24-26 2 2 5 2 1 

21-23 5711 3412 

18-20 6422 23 04 

15-17 3323 1333 

12-14 12 2 7 13 

9-11 12 1 4 4 

6-8 2 3 2 2 

3-5 4 2 2 1 

0-2 3 1 

Total 21 20 21 20 21 20 21 20 

Median 20.3 21 8.5 13.3 30.4 24 16.5 15 

P. E. 4.3 4.1 5.4 3.7 4.5 2.9 6.8 3.8 

Difference —.3 —4.8 6.4 1.5 

P. E. of D 1.31 1.44 1.17 1.71 




9-11 12-14 15-17 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30-32 33-35 36-38 

Figure 3 — Showing the relative achievement of the two sections on the initial test 
on attempts. Curves based upon the total scores on the four fundamental operations. 




9-11 12-14 15-17 18-20 21-23 24-26 27-29 30-32 33-35 36-38 



Figure 4 — Showing the relative standing of the two sections 
attempts, based upon total scores, as in Figure 3. 



on the final test on 



38 



A Comparative Study of 




27 30 33 



Figure 5 — Showing the relative achievement of the two sections on the initial test. 
Curves based upon the total scores for rights on the four fundamental operations. 




Figure 6 — Showing the relative standing of the two sections on the final test, based 
upon total scores for rights, as in Figure 3. 



TABLE V 

Showing the Gross Gain and Percentage of Gain of the Two 

Sections 

GROSS gain percentage OF GAIN 

attempts rights attempts RIGHTS 

ABA B A B A B 

Addition 3.0 —.3 2.8 .8 54 —5 107 28 

Subtraction —.3 .7 2.7 .3 —4 10 93 6 

Multiplication 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 19 26 48 34 

Division 3.4 1.2 3.3 1.0 87 31 220 62 

Total 7.1 2.8 9.9 3.3 Av. 39 16 117 33 



TABLE VI 

Showing the Relative Amount of Gain of the Two Sections in 
Terms of School Years 

years of gain 

attempts rights 

A B A B 

Addition 2.0 —0.2 2.8 0.8 

Subtraction __L —0.2 0.4 1.8 0.2 

Multiplication !___ 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 

Division 2.3 0.8 1.7 0.5 

Average 1.2 0.45 1.75 0.58 



Final Test 


Gain 


71.4 


28.6 


57.1 


23.8 



Directed and Uridirected Teaching 39 

TABLE VII 

Showing the Percentage of Section A Equaling or Exceeding 
THE Median of Section B 

Initial Test 

Attempts 1 42.8 

Rights 33.3 



Experiment 2 

Handwriting 

The Subjects. — All the pupils of the sixth, seventh, and 
eighth grades of four different schools, numbering 346, par- 
ticipated in this experiment. The pupils of two of these 
schools constituted the directed groups, while the pupils of 
the two remaining schools served as control groups. The 
directed groups attended schools located in towns of about 
2,500 inhabitants, largely of native American stock. The 
undirected groups attended a school located in a town of 
about 1,500 inhabitants and a ward school located in the 
resident section of a small city. How these pupils com- 
pared with respect to average age and nationality may be 
seen from an examination of the following table : 

TABLE VIII 

Showing the Enrollment, Average Age, and Nationality of the 
Pupils Participating in This Experiment 

Directed Groups Undirected Groups 

Per Cent Per Cent 

Enroll- Average of Foreign Enroll- Average of Foreign 

Grade ment Age A. D. Parentage ment Age A. D. Parentage 

6 73 12.7 1.0 3 51 11.7 .95 2 

7 54 13.1 .95 6 53 12.6 .98 2 

8 60 13.9 .99 2 55 13.3 .88 2 

The Teachers. — The teachers cooperating in this experi- 
ment were all the regular teachers, none of whom had taken 
any special training for the teaching of handwriting. How 
nearly the two groups were equal in teaching ability could 
not be determined with any reasonable degree of accuracy. 
Only rough measures of teaching efficiency were available, 
such as education and experience in teaching. How the two 
groups compared with respect to these measures may be 
seen by an inspection of Table IX. 



40 A Comparative Study of 

TABLE IX 

Showing the Relative Amounts of Education and Experience of 
THE Two Groups of Teachers 

Directed Undirected 

Years of Years of 

Grade Education Experience Education Experience 

f, < Elementary 14 Normal 3 

^ } High School 15 Normal 3 

rj \ Normal 1 Normal 10 

( Elementary 10 Normal 7 

Q f Normal 3 Normal 10 

\ Elementary 34 Normal 11 

The undirected teachers, as a group, had more education 
and less experience than the directed teachers. Since expe- 
rience beyond three years has been found to add very little 
to teaching ability, it seems probable that the control group 
was superior to the experimental group of teachers. (See 
page 29.) 

Method of Procedure. — The four cooperating schools were 
first studied with respect to the age and nationality of the 
pupils ; then, on the basis of this study, two of the schools 
were selected for the directed groups and the other two for 
the undirected groups, known as the A-groups and the B- 
groups, respectively. In making this division, the grades 
having the highest average age and the highest percentage 
of f -^reign parentage were placed in the A-groups, thus giv- 
ing a slight advantage to the B-groups. (See Table VIII.) 
When this division had been made, it was found that the 
teachers of the B classes had more education, but less expe- 
rience, than the A teachers. It is probable, however, that 
the advantage, if any, lay on the side of the B teachers. 
(See page 29.) Only the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades 
in each school participated in the experiment. 

The A teachers conducted their classes according to a 
directed-teaching plan, while the B teachers taught their 
classes after their own fashion. All the teachers gave the 
same amount of time to handwriting — namely, fifteen min- 
utes daily. The following written directions were placed 
in the hands of each directed teacher : 

1. Give just fifteen minutes daily to handwriting. 

2, With reference to position, teach the following points : 

(1) The forearm should be nearly perpendicular to the 
line of writing. 

(2) The hand should face downward, with the wrist in- 
clined not more than 45 degrees. 

(3) The hand should slide on the fourth and fifth fingers. 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 41 

(4) The grasp of the pen should be light, with the fin- 
gers moderately curved. 

3. With reference to movement, teach: 

(1) The sideward movement of the hand across the page 
should be free. 

(2) The writing movement should be a combination of 
the arm and finger movement. 

4. Give drill exercises whenever needed to develop free- 
dom and fluency in movement. (See the references for 
these exercises.) 

5. Rate each pupil's writing on both the Ayers and the 
Freeman Scales at the beginning of this experiment and 
again at the close. (The specimens will be taken by the 
principal of the school in each case.) 

6. Lead each pupil to set up definite standards to be at- 
tained by the end of the school year. For this purpose util- 
ize the scores on the standard scales. 

7. Rate each pupil's writing once a month on the Freeman 
Scale and keep him informed of his progress. 

8. Have each pupil keep an individual record card for 
these monthly scores on the Freeman Scale, and plot a graph 
showing his own progress and the progress of the class. 

9. Lead the child to analyze his own writing habits. Cen- 
ter attention on one important phase at a time. Distribute 
attention over the various phases as indicated below : 

First week — position and movement ; 

Second week — uniformity of slant ; 

Third week — uniformity of alignment ; 

Fourth week — spacing and quality of line; 

Fifth week — letter formation ; 

Sixth week — speed. 
At the end of the sixth week go back to position and move- 
ment and repeat the cycle. As soon as the standard is at- 
tained in any of these phases, give that phase no more spe- 
cial attention. 

10. As far as possible, fit instruction and practice to in- 
dividual needs. 

11. Make your instructions brief and concise in order to 
conserve the time for practice. 

12. Lisist on all written work being done in the pupil's 
best quality of handwriting. 

13. Keep notes on your daily work, so that you can write 
a full and accurate account of the experiment. 

14. Make constant use of the following references : 
Freeman, F. N., The Teaching of Handwriting. 
Freeman, F. N., The Handwriting Movement. 
Monroe, W. S., Measuring the Results of Teaching. 



42 A Comparative Study of 

All the teachers were urged to follow the instructions- 
closely, and frequent inquiry was made concerning the prog- 
ress of the work. 

No attempt was made to supervise the work of the control 
group of teachers, except with respect to the amount of time 
given to handwriting. Each teacher was left to devise her 
own plans from day to day. 

The experiment continued from October to April, a pe- 
riod of six months. The progress of each grade was meas- 
ured by the amount of gain on the Ayers Scale. The in- 
itial and final specimens were all rated by a board of five 
graders, none of whom, except the writer, knew the nature 
or purpose of the experiment, nor which were the directed 
groups or the undirected groups. The grading board, in 
addition to the writer, consisted of the following persons : 

Frank S. White, an instructor in education in the Fair- 
mont State Normal School and formerly a writing teacher. 

M. H. Cole, principal of the White School, Fairmont, 
W. Va. 

Elma Ruth Shreve, formerly a teacher of seven years' 
experience. 

T. C. Moore, an instructor in commercial subjects in the 
Fairmont High School, Fairmont, W. Va. 

Results. — Complete records were obtained from 246 pu- 
pils. Of this number, 120 were in the directed grades and 
126 in the undirected grades. The records of 100 pupils 
had to be eliminated, because they were absent from one or 
both tests. In order to render the groups equal in numbers 
and approximately equal in initial achievement, six more of 
the poorest records were eliminated from the undirected 
grades, leaving 120 in each group. 

The computation of the coefficient of variability for each 
member of the grading board gave the following results : 

Francis Shreve .10 

Elma Ruth Shreve .11 

Frank S. White .12 

M. H. Cole .12 

T. C. Moore .12 

How the directed and undirected groups compare may be 
seen from an examination of the following tables and 
graphs. In the tables A indicates the directed groups and 
B the undirected. 



Directed and JJyidirected Teaching 



43 





TABLE X 








Distribution of Scores on the 


Initial 


AND Final Rating 


FOR 




Quality 










Initial Rating 




Final Rating 




A 


B 


Score 


A 


B 




1 




68-71 


9 


2 




1 


1 


65-67 


8 


1 




1 


5 


62-64 


6 


4 




1 


1 


59-61 


5 


2 




2 


2 


56-58 


10 


7 




2 


4 


53-55 


3 


2 




9 


6 


50-52 


17 


7 





5 


5 


47-49 


8 


4 




19 


14 


44-46 


13 


11 




9 


11 


41-43 


12 


15 




18 


13 


38-40 


8 


15 




14 


10 


35-37 


7 


16 




18 


20 


32-34 


8 


19 




7 


11 


29-31 


3 


5 




11 


14 


26-28 


3 


9 




1 


3 


23-25 




1 




1 




20-22 






Total 


120 


120 




120 


120 


Median 


39.3 


38.5 




49.3 


40 


P. E. 


6.1 


6.8 




7.5 


7.0 


Difference 


.8 






9.3 
.93 




P. E. of D 


.83 




32 |\ 






30 / /^ \ 












1/ \ \ 












28 // \ 












/ / ] 


N^ •', 










26 / / ' 
f / 1 










-- 


; / 


\ \ 








-- 


22 / / 


\ \ 
\ 1 










20 ,' / 


\ \ 










18 .' / 












16 ' / 


\\ 










" 7 




\ 








12 7 




\ 








10 // 


, 


\ 









J-J.Sft 



20-25 26-31 32-37 38-43 44-49 50-55 56-61 62-67 68-73 74-78 

Figure 7 — Showing the relative standing of the directed and undirected groups on 
the initial rating for quality, Ayers Scale. •• 



44 



A Comparative Study of 



36 
34 
32 
30 
28 
26 
24 
22 
20 
18 
16 
14 
12 
10 







20-25 



/ 1 > 


\ 


" 




V,^^ 





/ / i 


\^ 






\ 


-- 


/' / ' \ 

/ 1 \ 


V \ 


-- 




\ \ 


-- 




\ \ 




/ / 


\ \ 
\ \ 

N \ 

N \ 




// U.ifo 


\ \ 
\ \ 

\ \ 


-- 



26-31 32-37 38-43 44-49 50-55 56-61 62-67 68-73 74-79 



Figure 8 — Showing the relative standing of the directed and undirected groups on 
the final rating for quality, Ayers Scale. 

TABLE XI 
Distribution of Scores on the Initial and Final Tests for Rate. 



Initial Test 
A B 

4 



5 5 

5 2 
3 1 
2 8 
2 7 

6 5 
5 11 

20 21 

5 7 

10 12 
14 8 
14 16 

11 7 
14 10 

Total 120 120 

Median 64.5 71 

P. E. 14.1 11.6 

Difference 6.5 



Final Test 



Score 
121 

116-120 

111-115 

106-110 

101-105 

96-100 

91-95 

86-90 

81-85 

76-80 

71-75 

66-70 

61-65 

56-60 

51-55 

4e--50 

-45 



A 

11 

1 

1 

2 

5 

4 

7 
12 

9 
15 
23 

9 
12 

2 

4 

1 

2 
120 
78.3 
12.6 

2.0 

1 RQ 



B 
2 
1 

3 

3 

6 

4 

5 

7 
13 
17 
23 
10 

9 

9 

5 

1 

2 
120 
76.3 
11.2 



Directed mid Undirected Teaching 



42 

39 

36 

33 

30 

27 

24 

21 

18 ,/ 
/ 



A /' 


\ 




/' \ ' 


/ \ ^ 




/' w 


V; 












9^^/fi 





15 
12 

9 

6 

3 


41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-110 111-120 121-130 

Figure 9 — Showing the relative standing of the directed and undirected groups on 
the initial test for speed. The score is in terms of letters per minute. 

42 



45 

42 
39 
36 
33 
30 
27 
24 
21 
18 
15 
12 

9 

6 

3 




41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-110 111-120 121-130 

Figure 10 — Showing the relative standing of the directed and undirected groups on 
the final rating for speed. 



46 

Rate 



80 
76 

72 
68 
64 
60 
56 
52 
48 
44 
40 
36 
32 
28 



A Comparative Study of 


















































1 

. . 1 










...X-:'^ 










J 








1 (l 


k^^d 


) 








7 










1 


^ 


^ 




d 


1 












1 
1 






(^' 














<b 






. . y 


^ 


















/^ 


















i 


) 




) 




















/ 




















fi 


( 




















■y; 


7 




















/ 




















— <: 


/ 
k 




















I 



















34 



38 



42 



46 



50 



54 



58 



62 



^% 



70 



Quality 
Figure 11 — Showing the relative standing of the directed and undirected groups, by 
grades, on the initial rating for speed and quality. 



/^V — (7)"" ~~~~ ~ — (J) Ayers Standards 

Q (~\ Q Directed Groups 

Q Q Qt Undirected Groups 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 



47 



Rate 



QS 






















0/1 






(?). 

















80 




^. 




■^ 


^ 


1 




;jv 












\ 




\ 


L C 




r 






Yd — 

TO 


(gr 




is 




\ 
























fi> 










DO --- 

fi4 








... r 


/ 

^ 




















/ 


y — 












bU 






^ 


k' 














•^9 






— )1 

J 
















48 --- 






/ 
















AA 




r 


1 
















AO 




V 

/ 
J 


















i^fi 




/ 


















32 




/ 


















28 --- 


:f..- 



















34 



38 



42 



46 



50 



54 



58 



62 66 



70 



Quality 
Figure 12— Showing the relative standing of the directed and undirected groups, by 
grades, on the final rating for speed and quality. 

Q\ .(T\ —(2) Ayers Standards 

Q f 2)" O Eirected Groups 

(~\ (~\ Q Undirected Groups 

TABLE XII 

Showing the Gross Gain, Percentage of Gain, and Gain in Terms 
OF School Years 



Quality 
Gross 
Directed 10 

Undirected 1-5 

Rate 

Directed 13.8 

Undirected 5.3 

TABLE XIII 



Percentage School Years 

25 2.5 

4 .4 



21 

7 



2.4 
1.0 



Showing the Percentage of the Directed Groups Equaling or 
Exceeding the Median of the Undirected 

initial Test Final Test Gain 

Quality 53.3 66.6 13.3 

Rate 43.3 55.0 11.7 



48 A Comparative Study of 

Experiment 3 

Silent Reading 

The Subjects. — The pupils of two fourth grades in the 
same school system acted as subjects for this experiment. 
4A had an enrollment of 32, with an average age of 9.3, and 
4B had an enrollment of 36, with an average age of 9.6. 
The Otis Group Intelligence Test, Form B, was given to 
both grades, with the following results : 

Grade Median P. E. 

4A (directed) 55.3 6.3 

4B (undirected) 56.0 4.6 

Difference, 0.7; P. E. of difference, 1.46 



26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 

Figure 13 — Showing the relative distribution of scores on the Otis Intelligence Scale. 

The two grades, therefore, were approximately equal in 
general intelligence, with a slight advantage in favor of 4B. 
To avoid favoring the directed group, 4A was chosen for 
direction and 4B for the undirected group. 

Teachers. — Two teachers, known as X and Y, cooperated 
in this experiment. They held similar positions in the same 
school system, but how nearly they were equal in teaching 
ability could not be accurately determined. On the basis 
of education and years of experience they ranked as follows : 



acher 


Education 


Years of Experience 


X 


High School 


9 


Y 


Normal 


2 



Teacher X had the advantage in experience, but Teacher 
Y had superior training. Since education has been found 
to be a more reliable measure of teaching efficiency than is 
experience, it seems probable that Teacher Y had a slight 
advantage over Teacher X. (See page 29.) 

Method of Procedure. — Teacher X directed the work of 
4A according to a directed-teaching plan, while Teacher Y 
taught 4B, following her own plan. Both teachers gave the 
same amount of time to reading — namely, thirty minutes a 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 49 

day. This time was divided into two periods of fifteen min- 
utes each. The same text was used in both grades. 

At the beginning of the experiment the writer gave Mon- 
roe's Standardized Silent Reading Test, Form 1, to both 
grades. The experiment was then continued for twelve 
weeks, from the middle of January to the middle of April. 
The teacher directing the work of 4A proceeded according 
to the following plan : 

1. On the basis of what the Monroe test revealed the 
needs of the class were diagnosed. 

2. The pupils of similar ability were grouped together, 
thus forming three groups. 

Group I, containing the pupils reaching or exceeding the 
standard in both speed and comprehension, numbering 
seven. 

Group II, containing the pupils falling below the stand- 
ard in both rate and comprehension, numbering eighteen. 

Group III, containing the pupils failing to reach the 
standard in comprehension, but exceeding it in rate, num- 
bering seven. 

3. Improvised tests similar to the standard tests were 
given frequently, and the pupils regrouped according to 
their attainments. 

4. Special measures were adopted designed to increase 
the rate of reading, particularly of Group II, such as : 

(1) Selecting reading matter with easy vocabulary. 

(2) Timed sentence tests. These tests were graded and 
each pupil informed of his score. Graphs were made show- 
ing the progress of the group. 

(3) Flash cards were used for phrase drills. 

(4) Having pupils read to see who could find answers to 
questions most quickly. 

5. Several measures designed to increase comprehension 
were employed, such as: 

(1) Frequent word drills and studies were conducted to 
increase the pupil's vocabulary. Difficult words were 
worked out by phonics and analysis. 

(2) The meanings of words were studied, and the words 
used in oral and written sentences. 

(3) Reading material was selected that made a strong 
appeal to the pupils. 

6. An attempt was made to motivate the work by utiliz- 
ing native interests. Pupils who enjoyed construction work 
were given written instructions to follow. Those who liked 
drawing were encouraged to illustrate poems and stories. 
All the pupils were encouraged to use the books and maga- 



50 



A Comparative Study of 



zines on the reading table, selecting these according to 
their own interests. 

At the end of the twelve-weeks' period Monroe's Stand- 
ardized Reading Test, Form I, was given a second time to 
both grades. 

Results.— After eliminating the records of all pupils not 
present for both tests and pairing off to equalize initial 
achievement, twenty-eight complete records were obtained 
from each grade. 









TABLE 


XIV 








Distributions of 


Scores 


on the 


Initial and 


Final Tests 


FOR 






Comprehension 












Initial Test 






Final 


Trst 






iA 


iB 




Score 

29-30 
27-28 
25-26 
23-24 
21-22 
19-20 
17-18 


JfA 
1 

2 
2 
2 
2 
1 
4 


AB 
3 

3 
3 






1 






15-16 


2 


1 






5 


2 




13-14 


2 


2 






1 


• 1 




11-12 


7 


1 






3 


9 




9-10 





5 






7 


4 




7-8 


2 


5 






5 


4 




5-6 





2 






3 


2 




3-4 


1 


2 






3 


6 




1-2 




1 


Total 




28 


28 






28 


28 


Median 




7.9 


8.0 






17 


10.6 


P. E. 




2.8 


2.5 






4.4 


4.1 


Difference 




—0.1 








6.4 




P. E. of D. 




.70 








1.13 




14 














-- 


12 
10 


A 












-- 




17-20 21-24 25-28 29-32 



33-36 



Figure 14 — Showing the relative attainment of the two groups on the initial test for 
comprehension. 



Directed mid Undirected Teaching 



51 



12 

10 




'd-Vl 13-16 17-20 21-24 25-28 29-32 33-36 



Figure 15 — Showing the relative standing of the two grades on the final test for 
comprehension. 



TABLE XV 
Distribution of Scores on the Initial and Final Tests for Rate 



Initial Test 



Total 28 

Median 62.7 

P. E. 11.5 

Diflference 6.7 

P. E. of D 3.6 



2 

4 
8 
5 
3 

7 

1 

1 

2 

28 
56 
15.3 



Score 

126-135 

116-125 

106-115 

96-105 

86-95 

76-85 

66-75 

56-65 

46-55 

36-45 

26-35 

16-25 

6-15 



Final Test 
4A J,B 



28 

86 

17.4 
4.0 
4.65 



28 
82 
17.4 




6-25 26-45 46-65 66-85 



106-125 126-145 



Figure 16 — Showing the relative attainment of the two grades on the initial test for 
rate. 



52 



A Comparative Study of 



12 

10 




6-25 26-45 46-65 66-85 86-105 106-125 126-145 

Figure 17 — Showing the relative standing of the two grades on the final test for rate. 

TABLE XVI 

Showing the Gross Gain, Percentage of Gain, and Gain in Terms 
OF School Years 

comprehension 

Gross Percentage School Years 

Directed 9.1 115 1.5 

Undirected 2.6 83 .4 

rate 

Directed 23.3 37 1.1 

Undirected 26.0 46 1.2 

TABLE XVII 

Showing the Percentage of the Directed Group Equaling or 
Exceeding the Median of the Undirected 

Initial Test Fiyial Test Gain 

Comprehension 48.2 89.3 41.1 

Rate 64.3 46.4 —17.9 



Experiment 4 

Problem Solving in Arithmetic 

The Subjects. — The pupils of the fifth grade in two dif- 
ferent schools acted as subjects for this experiment. These 
schools were located in small towns, and had less than 5% 
of foreign pupils. Each grade was divided into two sec- 
tions, known as A and B, of approximately equal ability and 
initial achievement, on the basis of scores made on an in- 
telligence test, and an initial test with Monroe's Standard- 
ized Reasoning Test II, Form 1. Unfortunately, one prin- 
cipal failed to give the intelligence test, and in this case the 
grade was divided on the basis of scores made on Monroe's 
Standardized Reasoning Test. On the reasoning test this 
grade made the following scores for correct principle: 



Dir^ected and Uyidirected Teaching 



53 



ction 


No. of Pupils 


Av. Age 


Median 


p. E. 


A 


18 


11.15 


18.7 


4.5 


B 


20 


11.28 


18.5 


4.5 



On the National Intelligence Test the other fifth grade 
made the following record : 



Section 

A 
B 



No. of Pupils 

13 
12 



Av. Age 

11.92 
12.08 



?.5 



p. E. 

14.9 
9.4 




1-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 



17-20 21-24 



•25-28 29-32 33-36 



Figure 18 — Showing the relative distribution of the scores made on the initial test 
on Monroe's Standardized Reasoning Test. 




41-50 



Figure 19 — Showing the relative distribution of scores on the National Intelligence 
Test. 

Section A was chosen, in each case, for the directed group, 
and Section B for the undirected group. 

The experiment continued for eight weeks. 

The Teachers. — Four teachers, one for each section, co- 
operated in this experiment. All of these teachers, except 
one, were the regular classroom teachers, and had charge of 
the pupils they were accustomed to teach. How these 
teachers compared with respect to education and experience 
is shown in Table XVIII. 



TABLE XVIII 

Showing the Relative Amounts of Education and Experience of 
THE Teachers Cooperating in Experiment 4 



Directed 
School Education Experience 

School A Elementary 8 

School B College 15 



Undirected 
Education Experience 
Normal 1 

High School 3 



54 A Comparative Study of 

The teacher with a college education taught Section A in 
one school for the purpose of the experiment. Conse- 
quently he taught pupils that he had not been accustomed 
to teach and a subject that he had not taught for ten years. 
Apparently these factors more than overbalanced his supe- 
riority due to better training and more years of experience, 
for the teacher with only an elementary education achieved 
better results with her section than the college teacher did 
with his section. 

Method of Procedure. — The directed groups and the un- 
directed groups gave thirty minutes daily to arithmetic, and 
covered the same amount of text. The undirected teachers 
were left to their own resources for plans and devices, while 
the directed teachers worked according to the following 
plan: 

1. Diagnose the needs of your section as directed and 
suggested by Monroe in his Measuring the Results of Teach- 
ing, pages 157-174. 

2. Teach a series of lessons to the section, emphasizing 
in turn the steps required in solving a problem, according 
to Monroe. Fit the instruction to the needs of the class as 
shown by the diagnosis. (See Monroe's Measurifig the Re- 
sults of Teaching, pages 160-168.) 

3. Check up on the progress of the class by testing them 
every tenth lesson, using the Stone Scale for measuring rea- 
soning ability in arithmetic. Make a graph showing the 
standing of the class on each test. Have each pupil keep a 
similar graph showing the class standing and his own stand- 
ing. 

4. Explain to the pupils the meaning of the standard 
scores, and lead each pupil to set up, as a goal to be reached, 
a definite number of points of improvement to be made dur- 
ing the experiment. 

The initial and final test were given by the principal of 
the school and scored by the writer. Progress was meas- 
ured in terms of gain on the Monroe Scale. 

Results.— See Tables XIX to XXII and Figures 20-23. 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 



55 







TABLE 


XIX 








Distribution 


OF Scores 


ON 


THE Initial and 


Final Tests 


FOR 




Correct Principle 








Initial 


Test 






Final 


Test 




5A 




5B 




Score 

34-35 


5A 

2 


5B 




2 








32-33 


2 


1 




2 




1 




30-31 


3 


2 




1 




2 




28-29 


2 


2 




1 




2 




26-27 


1 


2 




1 




3 




24-25 


1 


2 




1 




1 




22-23 


2 


1 




2 




1 




20-21 


2 


2 


• 


2 




1 




18-19 


2 


3 




3 




2 




16-17 


1 


1 




1 




4 




14-15 


5 


4 




5 




2 




12-13 


5 


3 




5 




5 




10-11 


3 


6 




3 




6 




8-9 




2 




2 




2 




6-7 
4-5 




1 


Total 


31 




32 






31 


32 


Median 


15 




14.5 






19.5 


16 


P. E. 


5.5 




5.1 






5.6 


5.2 


Difference 


.5 










3.5 

1.4 




P. E. of D 


1.3 






10-13 14-17 18-21 22-25 



30-33 



Figure 20 — Showing the relative achievement of the two groups on the initial test 
for correct principle, Monroe Scale. 



10 




2-5 6-9 10-13 14-17 18-21 22-25 26-29 30-33 34-37 38- 

FlGURE 21 — Showing the relative standing of the two groups on the final test for 
correct principle. 



56 



A Compay^ative Study of 







TABLE 


XX 








Distribution 


OF Scores o> 


r THE Initial and 


Final Tests 


FOR 






Correct A 


NSWER 










Initial 


Test 






Final 


Test 






5A 


5B 




.Score 

24-25 
22-23 


5A 
1 


5B 






1 






20-21 


2 


1 






2 


1 




18-19 


3 


1 






2 


1 




16-17 


4 


3 






2 


2 




14-15 


4 


4 






5 


3 




12-13 


6 


5 






3 


8 




10-11 


6 


4 






9 


4 




8-9 


4 


8 






4 


3 




6-7 


1 


4 






2 


8 




4-5 




2 






1 


2 




2-3 
0-1 






Total 




31 


32 






31 


32 


Median 




9.9 


9.5 






13.5 


11 


P. E. 




3.0 


2.8 






2.7 


2.7 


Difference 




.4 








2.5 




P. E. of D. 




.73 








.68 




12 


r" 


"TTv 






- 






10 


1 


/ 1 ^ 












8 


1 
1 / 


1 \\ 
1 ^ \ 










_. 


6 


/ 


\ N^ 


\ 








-- 


4 / . 


/ 


1 s. 










-- 


2 j/ 






N. 


^\ 








j^. . . . 




; sj.f^o 




"^ " ^ 


irr:^^ 


^ 





0-3 4-7 8-11 12-15 16-19 20-23 24-27 2^-31 

Figure 22 — Showing the relative initial achievement of both groups on the initial 
test for correct answer. 




0-3 4-7 8-11 12-15 16-19 20-23 24-27 28-31 

Figure 23 — Showing the relative standing of the two groups on the final test for 
correct answer. 



Dir^ected and Undirected Teaching 57 

TABLE XXI 

Showing the Gross Gain, Percentage of Gain, and Gain in 
Terms of School Years 

CORRECT principle 

Gross Percentage School Years 

Directed 4.5 30 .6 

Undirected 1.5 10 .2 

correct answers 

Directed 3.6 36 .8 

Undirected 1.5 16 .3 

TABLE XXII 

Showing the Percentage of the Directed Groups Equaling or 
Exceeding the Median of the Undirected 

Initial Test Final Test Gain 

Correct Principle 51.6 58 6.4 

Correct Answer 53.9 74.2 20.3 

Experiment 5 
Appreciation of Poetry 

The Subjects. — The subjects for this experiment con- 
sisted of all the pupils of three seventh grades in two schools 
located in the residence sections of a city of about 18,000 
inhabitants. The pupils were all of native American par- 
entage, and many of them came from homes of the business 
and professional men of the city. They were divided into 
two groups, known as A and B, approximately equal in 
mental ability and initial achievement, on the basis of the 
scores made on a group test for mental ability and on a 
special test designed to measure the ability to appreciate 
poetry. Terman's Group Test for Mental Ability, Form A. 
was used to measure the mental ability of the pupils, and 
a special test designed by the writer was used to measure 
their ability to appreciate poetry. This test is fully de- 
scribed in the following pages. On the basis of these tests 
the A groups were selected for the directed group and the 
B groups for the undirected group. The directed group had 
nearly twice as many pupils as the undirected group, but the 
directed group was divided into two sections and taught by 
two teachers. For the scores on the Terman Test for Men- 
tal Ability, see Table XXIII and Figure 24 ; for the scores 
on the initial test for appreciation of poetry, see Table 
XXIV and Figure 25. 



58 



A Comparative Study of 





TABLE XXIII 








Distribution of Scores 


ON THE TERMAN 

Ability 


Test for 


Mental 






Score 


Directed 


Undirected 






161-170 


1 









151-160 


1 


2 






141-150 


3 


1 






131-140 


3 


1 






121-130 


4 


1 






111-120 


6 


4 






101-110 


6 


4 






91-100 


5 


5 






81-90 


4 


4 






71-80 


7 


5 






61-70 


7 


2 






51-60 


6 


3 






41-50 


2 


1 






31-40 


1 







Total 




_ 56 


33 




Median 




_ 93 


94 




P. E. 




_ 21.1 


14.1 




Difference 




_— 1 
_ 3.73 






P. E. of D 







9 








-- 


8 










7 




, 




-- 


6 


/ 


1 \ 




-- 


5 




1 \ 




\ 


4 


/ / 




\ 


\ 


3 


/ / 
/ / 






\ " 


2 


/ /" 




\__ 


~ '^ \ 


1 


y / 


l^/.2-^ 




\\ 


0' 


(1 






\. 



31-45 46-60 61-75 76-90 91-105 106-120 121-135 136-150 151-165 

Figure 24 — Showing the relative distribution of scores on the Terman Test for men- 
tal ability. 



The Teachers. — Three teachers cooperated in this experi- 
ment — two for the directed group and one for the undi- 
rected group, the directed group being approximately twice 
as large as the undirected group. With respect to educa- 
tion and experience in teaching, the directed teachers were 
approximately equal to the undirected teachers, as may be 
seen from the following data: 



Directed and JJyidirected Teaching 59 

Teacher • Education Years of Experience 

Directed Normal 18 

Directed Normal 5 

Undirected Normal 11 

Method of Procedure. — The following scale for measuring 
the appreciation of poetry was devised and tentative stand- 
ards established by giving the test in five different schools 
in the seventh and eighth grades. Records were obtained 
from 129 pupils in the seventh grade and 127 in the eighth 
grade. The seventh-grade pupils made a median score of 
22, and the eighth-grade pupils made a median score of 28 — 
a difference of 6 points. The poem used in the test and the 
directions for giving and scoring the tests were typewritten 
on separate sheets of paper. 

Score 

A Scale for Measuring the Appreciation of Poetry 

Name School Grade Age 

Place a copy of "A Noble Nature" in the hands of each pupil. 

Directions to the Pupils 

Read this poem carefully, then do as directed below. 
Be careful to do exactly as directed. 

1. A poem may have as its main content any or all of the following: 

(1) An important idea. (Thought.) 

(2) Humor. (Fun.) 

(3) Sense experience. (Suggestions of sight, sound, odor, or 

taste.) 
Place a cross before the above statement that best expresses the 
nature of this poem — e. g., if this poem contains an important idea, 
place a cross before statement No. (1) ; if it is a humorous poem, be- 
fore statement No. (2) ; etc. 

2. Select from this poem two lines that best express the meaning. 
Write these lines in the space below. 

3. In giving effective expression to their thoughts and feelings, poets 
commonly employ the following: 

(1) Images or mental pictures. 

(2) Rhythm and rhyme. 

(3) Well-chosen words and phrases. 

(4) Interesting stories. 

(5) 'Strong and appealing characters. 

(6) Figures of speech. 

Place a cross before any of the above means or devices that the 
author has used very effectively in this poem. More than one may be 
marked. 

4. A poem may arouse one or more of the following emotions: 

(1) Joy or gladness. 

(2) Faith or trust. 

(3) Aspiration. 

(4) Admiration. 

(5) Patriotism. 



60 ■ A Comparative Study of 

(6) Sadness or grief. 

(7) Love or sympathy. 

(8) Awe or mystei'y. 

(9) Hopeless despair. 

Place a cross before any of the above statements that tell how this 
poem makes you feel. More than one may be marked. 

5. A poem may be used in any of the following ways: 

(1) Read for pleasure. 

(2) Read to modify one's own conduct. 

(3) Read to others for their instruction or pleasure. 

(4) As a basis for language and grammar lessons. 

(5) Memorized and quoted to others. 

Place a cross before any of the above statements that tell how this 
poem should be used. More than one may be marked. 

A definite set of directions for administering and scoring 
the tests was written out and applied in every instance. 
The scoring was done on the basis of 50 points for a perfect 
score. These points were distributed arbitrarily as follows : 



v'o. of Exercise 




PoitU 


's Allowed 


1 








15 


2 








10 


3 








10 


4 








10 


5 








5 




Total pc 


lints- 




_ 50 



The poem used for these tests was "A Noble Nature." 

Each of the three grades acting as subjects for this ex- 
periment was tested on the preceding scale. Then the di- 
rected teachers taught their groups, according to a definite 
plan for the teaching of poetry, three lessons per week for 
a period of ten weeks. The class periods were thirty min- 
utes in length. Meanwhile the undirected teacher gave the 
same amount of time to the teaching of poetry, following 
her own plans and devices. The same poems were taught 
to both groups. 

The directed teacher gave emphasis to what constitutes 
excellence in poetry and to teaching the pupils how to study 
poetry. To this end definite assignments were made and 
specific directions for study given. In general, an attempt 
was made to lead the pupils to see what constitutes excel- 
lence in poetry. The poems studied, fifteen in all, were 
selected from the Elson Grammar School Literature, Book I, 
which was the text then in use in the city schools. 

At the end of the ten weeks both groups were tested a 
second time on the scale previously described, using the 
same poem as a basis for the test, and the progress of each 
group measured in terms of gain over the previous record. 



Directed ayid Undirected Teaching 



61 



It should be noted that the pupils were not tested on the 
poems studied in the course of the experiment, but on a 
scale designed to measure their ability to appreciate poetry. 
The gain, therefore, represents not an increase in the spe- 
cific knowledge of the poems studied, but an increase in the 
ability to appreciate poetry. 

Results. — For a summary of the results, see Table XXIV 
and Figures 25 and 26. 







TABLE 


XXIT 






Distribution of Scores 


ON THE 


Initial and 


Final Test 


FOR 






Appreciation 










Initial Test 






Final 


Test 




7A 


7B 




Score 


7A 


7B 




1 






40-41 


1 


1 




1 


1 




37-39 


3 


1 




3 


1 




34-36 


9 


3 




4 


2 




31-33 


10 


3 




6 


4 




28-30 


10 


4 




8 


6 




25-27 


5 


4 




10 


5 




22-24 


4 


5 




6 


4 




19-21 


4 


4 




4 


3 




16-18 


3 


3 




3 


2 




13-15 


3 


2 




3 


2 




10-12 


2 


2 




2 


1 




7-9 


2 


1 




2 


1 




4-6 








2 


1 




1-3 








1 













Total 


.__ 56 


33 






56 


33 


Median 


.__ 23.5 


23.5 






29.5 


24.7 


P. E. 


.__ 6.3 


5.7 


' 




5.6 


5.5 


Difference 


.__ 








4.8 




P. E. of D 


.__ 1.3 








1.21 





18 




13-18 19-24 25-30 



43-48 



Figure 25 — Showing the relative achievement of the two groups on the initial test 
for the appreciation of poetry. 



62 A Comparative Study of 



1-6 7-12 13-18 19--4 25-30 31-36 37-42 43-48 

Figure 26 — Showing the relative standing of the two groups on the final test for the 
appreciation of poetry. 

TABLE XXV 

Showing the Gross Gain, Percentage of Gain, and Gain in 
Terms of School Years 

Gross Percentage School Years 

Directed 6 26 1.0 

Undirected 1.2 5 .2 

The percentage of the directed groups equaling or exceed- 
ing the median of the undirected groups was as follows : 

Initial Test Final Gain 

50 67.9 17.9 

Experiment 6 
History in the High School 

The Subjects. — The subjects for this experiment con- 
sisted of two classes in history — one in American history 
and one in modern European history — in Fairmont High 
School, Fairmont, W. Va. The American history class, 
numbering 59, was taught by Miss Elizabeth Koletka, and 
the modern European class, numbering 30, by Mr. H. Y. 
Clark. Both of these teachers were college graduates, with 
some special training for the teaching of history. 

Each class was divided into two sections, known as A 
and B, approximately equal in size, in mental ability, and 
in initial achievement in history. The division was made 
on the basis of the scores made on Terman's Group Test of 
Mental Ability, Form A, and a series of special tests in 
history, devised in each case by the teacher in charge of 
the class. (For the scores on Terman's Group Test of 
Mental Ability, see Table XXVI and Figure 27.) The spe- 
cial tests devised by the teachers covered the subject-matter 



Directed mid Undirected Teaching 63 

that the pupils had studied the first half of the school year, 
and were somewhat technical. Three tests of fifteen min- 
utes each were given to each class on three successive days, 
and the average score taken as the true score. The ques- 
tions for these tests were framed so that each question re- 
quired a definite answer. Consequently they could be 
graded with a fair degree of accuracy. Moreover, each 
teacher made out a definite grading plan, indicating what 
answers would receive full credit and what only partial 
credit, or no credit. The questions were weighted by allow- 
ing a certain number of points for each question answered 
correctly, the number of points being determined by the 
difficulty of the question as estimated by the teacher's judg- 
ment. The 100-point scale was used. In order to make 
the grading still more accurate, the papers were scored by 
the writer, and the average of his grade and the teacher's 
grade taken as the true score for each pupil. (For the 
scores on these special, initial tests in history, see Table 
XXVII and Figure 28.) 

Method of Procedure. — The experiment continued for 
nine weeks, the last half of the last semester of the school 
year of 1920-21. Both sections of each class were taught 
by the same teacher. In each case the teacher directed the 
work of Section A, following a directed-teaching plan, and 
taught Section B by the usual plan. The periods were sixty 
minutes in length. With Section A the period was divided, 
thirty minutes being allotted to the recitation and thirty 
minutes to supervised study. Section B had forty-five min- 
utes for the recitation and fifteen minutes for study with- 
out supervision. 

An attempt was made to teach Section A how to study 
history. To this end emphasis was placed upon factors, 
such as: 

Finding the main points ; 

Making outlines ; 

Underscoring and making marginal notations ; 

Exercising judgment in the selection and organization of 
material and in the interpretation of historical data ; 

Using the reference books. 

Minimum, average, and maximum assignments were 
made, thus providing for individual differences in ability 
to do work. The progress of the class was checked fre- 
quently by giving short-time tests. The test papers were 
graded carefully, and each pupil informed of his standing. 
Graphs were made showing the standing of the class on 
each test, and each pupil was encouraged to compare his 
standing with the class standing. 



64 A Comparative Study of 

During the study period the teacher passed quietly from 
pupil to pupil, giving help according to individual needs. A 
pupil desiring help was required to raise his hand. Help 
was given largely in the form of questions and suggestions. 

At the close of the experiment another series of tests was 
given on the subject-matter that had been covered during 
the experiment. This series of tests was administered and 
scored in the same manner as the initial series. In the sec- 
ond series the pupil's name or number was written on the 
back of the paper, so that the teacher did not know whose 
paper he was grading, except as he recognized the hand- 
writing. The writer was not personally acquainted with 
any of the pupils; hence, his grading was free from any 
personal bias. All the tests, in both the initial and the 
final series, were made long enough to keep every pupil busy 
for full fifteen minutes, and so difficult that no pupil could 
make a perfect score, but, at the same time, so simple that 
the slowest pupil could answer a few of the questions. 

In addition to the tests described in the preceding par- 
agraphs, Harlan's Standard Test in American history was 
given at the beginning of the experiment and again at the 
close to the two sections studying American history. No 
standard test was available for the sections studying mod- 
ern European history. 

Results. — Complete records were obtained from thirty 
pupils in American history, fifteen in each section, and 
fifty-five in modern European history, twenty-five in Sec- 
tion A and thirty in Section B. Four records had to be 
eliminated from Section A because of absence from tests. 

TABLE XXVI 

Distribution of Scores on Terman's Group Test of Mental 

Ability 

5(0>e Sec. A Sec B 

201-210 1 

191-200 1 

181-190 1 

171-180 1 1 

161-170 2 2 

151-160 2 3 

141-150 2 4 

131-140 5 6 

121-130 7 5 

111-120 4 4 

101-110 3 8 

91-100 5 3 

81-90 5 2 

71-80 1 2 

61-70 1 2 

51-60 1 1 

Total 40 45 

Median 121 122 

P. E. 21.1 22.2 

Difference — i 

P. E. of D 4.69 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 



65 



12 



12 




-50 51-70 71-93 91-110 111-130 131-150 151-170 171-190 



Figure 27 — Showing the relative attainment of the two groups on Terman's Group 
Test of Mental Ability. 



TABLE XXVII 

Distribution of Scores on the Special Initial and Final 

IN History 



Tests 





Initial Test 




Final 


Test 




Sec. A Sec. B 


Score 

96-100 
91-95 


Sec. A 
2 
4 


Sec.B 




1 4 


86-90 


6 


2 




1 2 


81-85 


11 


4 




4 4 


76-80 


3 


7 




6 4 


71-75 


2 


2 




8 12 


66-70 


4 


15 




2 2 


61-65 


3 


3 




6 4 


56-60 


1 


5 




4 6 


51-55 


1 


3 




4 4 


46-50 


2 


3 




1 2 


41-45 










2 1 


36-40 


1 


1 




1 


31-35 
. 26-30 






Total 


40 45 




40 


45 


Median 


66 67.5 




82.4 
10.1 


68.5 


P. E. 


9.1 9.0 


7.6 


Difference 


—1.5 




13.9 




P. E. of D 


1.97 




1.95 





66 



A Comparative Study of 




21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-SO 81-90 91-100 

Figure 28 — Showing the relative achievement of the two groups on the special initial 
tests in history. 




31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 



Figure 29 — Showing the relative standing of the two groups on the special final 
tests in history. 

TABLE XXVIII 

Distribution of the Scores on Harlan's Standard Test in 
American History 







Initial Test 




Final 


Test 






Sec. A Sec. B 


Score 

96-100 


Sec. A 
1 


Sec. B 








91-95 


2 


1 








86-90 


3 


1 






2 


81-85 


4 


4 






5 1 


76-80 


5 


3 


^ 




2 5 


71-75 


3 


8 






2 7 


66-70 


2 


4 






5 3 


61-65 


2 


3 






4 9 


56-60 


1 


4 






2 2 


51-55 


1 


2 






2 1 


46-50 


1 








1 


41-45 










1 


36-40 










1 


31-35 
26-30 






Total 




25 30 




25 


30 


Median • 


62.5 66 




78.5 


72.3 


P. E. 




7.0 5.6 




8.6 


6.9 


DifTerpncf" „_ ^ 


—3.5 




6.2 
2.13 




P. E. 


of D 


1.73 





Directed and Undirected Teaching 



67 




21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-91 91-100 

Figure 30 — Showing the relative initial achievement of the tv7o groups on Harlan's 
Test of Information in American History. 




21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 

Figure 31 — Showing the relative standing of the two groups on the final test with 
Harlan's Test of Information in American History. 

TABLE XXIX 

Showing the Gross Gain, Percentage of Gain, and Gain in 
Terms of School Years 

Special Tests in History School 

Gross Percentage Years 

Section A (directed) 16.4 25 

Section B (undirected) 1.0 2 

Harlan's Standard Test 

Section A (one class only) 16.0 26 .5 

Section B (one class only) 6.3 10 .2 

TABLE XXX 

Showing the Percentage of Section A Equaling or Exceeding 
THE Median of Section B 

Initial Test Final Test Gain 

Special Tests 47.5 66.7 19.2 

Harlan's Test 36.0 68.0 32.0 

Experiment 7 

History in the Grades 

The Subjects. — The subjects for this experiment con- 
sisted of two sections of the seventh grade of a school lo- 
cated in a city of about 20,000 inhabitants. Approximately 



68 A Comparative Study of 

5% of the pupils of this grade were of foreign parentage. 
These pupils were equally divided between the two sections. 

The Teacher: Both sections were taught by Miss Ruby 
Shaffer, a normal-school graduate, with three years' expe- 
rience in teaching. Miss Shaffer was fully aware of the 
nature of the experiment, and made an honest effort to 
keep all the important factors as nearly uniform as possi- 
ble, making only such differences as were required by the 
specific plan for directing the work of Section A. 

Method of Procedure. — The pupils of the seventh grade 
were divided into two sections, known as A and B, approxi- 
mately equal in numbers, in age and mental ability, and in 
initial achievement in history. The division was made on 
the basis of the scores made on the Haggerty Intelligence 
Test, on Van Wagenen's Standard Test in American His- 
tory, and on a special test devised by the teacher, covering 
the work that had been done since the beginning of the 
school year. (For the scores on these tests, see Tables 
XXXI to XXXV and Figures 32, 33, and 35.) 

The experiment continued from the first of March to the 
middle of May, 1921 — a period of ten weeks. Both sec- 
tions gave the same amount of time to history and covered 
the same subject-matter, both in kind and amount. But 
Section A worked under a directed-teaching plan, while 
Section B worked under the customary plan. 

At the close of the experiment. Van Wagenen's Standard 
Test, Form A, was repeated. The same form was used for 
both initial and final tests. The information scale, the 
character judgment scale, and the thought scale were all 
used, and the average of the three scores taken as the final 
score. These tests were administered and scored by the 
principal of the school. A second special test, covering the 
work done in the ten weeks, was devised and administered 
by the teacher. The papers of this test, as well as the in- 
itial test, were all graded by the teacher and the principal, 
and the average of the two grades taken as the true score. 

Results. — The results are summarized in Tables XXXII 
to XXXV and Figures 32 to 36. Complete records were 
obtained from fifty-one pupils — twenty-five in Section A 
and twenty-six in Section B. 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 



69 







TABLE 


XXXI 






Distribution 


OF Score 


3 ON 


THE 


Haggerty Intelligence 


Test 










Score 


Sec. A 


Sec. B 










136-140 




1 










131-135 














' 126-130 


1 


3 










121-125 


1 


2 










116-120 


1 


2 










111-115 


2 


3 










106-110 


4 


2 










101-105 


2 


5 










96-100 


5 


2 










91-95 


2 


1 


1 








86-90 


1 












81-85 


1 


1 










76-80 


2 


2 










71-75 


1 












66-70 


2 


2 










61-65 














56-60 






Total 










_ 25 
_ 99.5 
_ 11.1 
_ —6.5 


26 


IVTorli a Y\ 










106 


iVitrUldil 

P F! 










12.7 














P F nf D 










_ 3.34 




i, JZi. \J± xy. — — 

7 


u 




I 






7 


6 






/ 






6 


5 




/ 


\ 


/ 1 \ 
/ 1 \ 


\ 

\ 


5 


4 




/ 




/ 1 \ 






3 


-^ 


i 


1 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 






\ 3 

\ 2 


2 / " 


N 


/ 


^ 


/ 








s. \ 


/ 


\ 


/ 








\ \ 


1 / 

n /- 




■J 




\36Yo 




\ 1 

> 



51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101-110 111-120 121-130 131- 

FlGURE 32— Showing the relative attainment of the two sections on the Haggerty 
Intelligence Test. 

The average age of the two sections was : 

Section A 13-28 

Section B 1-5.19 

On the basis of general intelligence there was a slight dif- 
ference in favor of Section B. 



70 



A Comparative Study of 



TABLE XXXII 

Distribution of Scores on Van Wagenen's Standard Test in 
American History 





Initial 


Test 




Final 


Test 




Sec. A 


Sec. B 


Score 

19-19.9 


Sec. A 
1 


Sec. B 




1 


1 


18-18.9 


2 


1 







1 


17-17.9 


2 


2 




1 


2 


16-16.9 


1 


3 




3 


2 


15-15.9 


2 


1 




2 


2 


14-14.9 


3 


2 




1 


1 


13-13.9 


3 


2 







2 


12-12.9 


1 


3 




3 


2 


11-11.9 


2 


4 




5 


3 


10-10.9 





2 







3 


9-9.9 


3 


3 




3 


2 


8-8.9 


1 


1 




4 


2 


7-7.9 


2 


1 




1 


1 


6-6.9 


1 


1 




1 


1 
1 


5-5.9 
4-4.9 
3-3.9 


1 




Total 


25 


26 




25 


26 


Median 


10.7 


11 




13.5 


12.3 


P. E. 


2.5 


2.6 




2.6 


2.2 


Difference 


—0.3 






1.2 




P. E. of D 


.71 






.67 






13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 



Figure 33 — Showing the relative initial achievement of the two sections on Van 
Wagenen's Standard Test in History. 




11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 



4 

2 


21- 



Figure 34 — Showing the standing of the two sections on the final test with Van 
Wagenen's Standard Test in American History. 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 



71 



TABLE XXXIII 

Distribution of Scores on the Special Initial and Final Tests 

IN History 





Initial Test 




Final 


Test 




Sec. A Sec. B 


Score 

96-100 


Sec. A 

3 


Sec. 




2 1 


91-95 


4 


2 




6 5 


86-90 


5 


2 




2 4 


81-85 


3 


4 




5 5 


76-80 


2 


5 




2 2 


71-75 


1 


2 




2 4 


66-70 


2 


2 




3 


61-65 





3 


• 


1 1 


56-60 


3 


1 




2 


51-55 





1 




1 1 


46-50 


2 


2 







41-45 




1 




1 1 


36-40 
31-35 
26-30 
21-26 




1 


Total 


25 26 




25 


26 


Median 


78.5 78 




85.2 


76 


P. E. 


9.7 9.9 




10.9 


10. 


Difference 


.5 




9.2 
3.02 




P. E. of D 


2.74 






21-30 



41-50 51-60 61-70 



81-90 91-100 



Figure 35 — Showing the relative initial achievement of the two sections on the spe- 
cial initial test in history. 



10 




21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 



10 

8 
6 
4 
2 



- 



Figure 36 — Showing the standing of the two sections on the special, final test in 
history. 



72 A Compaf'ative Study of 

TABLE XXXIV 

Showing the Gross Gain, Percentage of Gain, and Gain in 
Terms of School Years 

Van Wagenen's Standard Test 

Gross Percentage School Years 

Section A (directed) 2.8 26 1.1 

Section B (undirected) 1.3 12 .5 

Special Tests 

Section A 6.7 8 , 

Section B —2.0 —3 

TABLE XXXV 

Showing the Percentage of Section A Equaling or Exceeding 
THE Median of Section B 

Initial Test Final Test Gain 

Van Wagenen's Test 44 60 16 

Special Test 52 68 16 

Experiment 8 
Biology 

The Subjects. — Two sections of a class in biology in the 
Fairmont High School, Fairmont, W. Va., served as sub- 
jects for this experiment. The class, numbering thirty- 
four, was a fairly representative group, coming from va- 
rious sections of the city and representing widely different 
intellectual levels. 

The Teacher. — Both sections were taught by Miss 
Frances Frost, who was a college graduate, with some spe- 
cial training for the teaching of biology. Miss Frost was 
interested in determining which was the most effective 
method of teaching a class, and made an effort to give each 
method a fair trial. 

Method of Procedure. — The class was divided into two 
sections, approximately equal in numbers, in mental ability, 
and in initial achievement in biology. The division was 
made on the basis of the scores made on Terman's Group 
Test of Mental Ability, Form A, and on a series of special 
tests devised by the teacher, covering the work that had 
been done in biology since the beginning of the school year. 
(For the scores on these tests, see Tables XXXVI to 
XXXVIII and Figures 37 and 38. 

The experiment continued for nine weeks, from March 
14 to May 16, 1921. During this time Section A was taught 
according to a directed-teaching plan and Section B by the 
usual plan. Section A had thirty minutes for the recita- 
tion and thirty minutes for supervised study, while Section 
B had fifty minutes for recitation and prepared their les- 
sons at home or in study periods without any supervision. 



Directed mid Undirected Teaching 



73 



Both sections had the same field work and covered the same 
subject-matter. 

At the close of the experiment another series of three spe- 
cial tests was devised and administered by the teacher. 
These tests were fifteen minutes in len^h. The average 
made on the three tests was taken as the true score. The 
papers were graded by the teacher and by the writer, and 
the average of the ratings taken as the pupil's final score. 
This was true both of the initial and final series of special 
tests. 

Results. — Twenty-seven complete records were obtained 
— fourteen in Section A and thirteen in Section B. 

TABLE XXXVI 

Distribution of the Scores on Term an 's Group Test of Mental 

Ability 

Score Sec. A Sec. B 

171-180 1 

161-170 

151-160 1 

141-150 1 

131-140 1 2 

121-130 2 3 

111-120 2 1 

101-110 2 2 

91-100 2 1 

81-90 2 1 

71-80 1 

61-70 1 

51-60 1 

41-50 

31-40 

Total 14 13 

Median HI 113.5 

P. E. 16 21.4 

Difference — 2.5 

P. E. of D '^•Sl 

5 5 





31-50 51-70 71-90 91-110 111-130 131-150 151-170 171-190 

Figure 37— Showing the relative attainment of the two groups on Terman's Group 
Test of Mental Ability. 



74 



A Comparative Study of 



TABLE XXXVII 
Distribution of Scores on the Initial and Final Tests in Biology 





Initial Test 




Final Test 




Sec. A Sec. B 


Score 


Sec. A Sec. B 






96-100 


1 




1 1 


91-95 


1 1 




1 


86-90 


3 1 




1 2 


81-85 


4 1 




2 2 


76-80 


3 2 




1 


71-75 


1 1 




2 3 


66-70 


2 







61-65 


1 2 




2 2 


56-60 


1 




1 


51-55 







1 2 


46-50 


1 




1 


41-45 


1 




1 


36-40 






1 


31-35 
26-30 




Total 


14 13 




14 13 


Median 


68.5 68.5 




83.5 69.8 


P. E. 


12.4 10.7 




5.8 9.9 


Difference 


0. 




13.7 


P. E. of D 


4.44 




3.15 




Figure 38 
in biology. 



31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 

Showing the relative initial achievement of the two sections on the tests 




21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 

Figure 39 — Showing the standing of the two sections on the final tests in biology. 



TABLE XXXVIII 
Showing the Gross Gain and Percentage of Gain 



Gross 



Section A (directed) 15 

Section B (undirected) 1.3 



Percentage 

22 
2 



The percentage of Section A equaling or exceeding the 
median of Section B was : 



Initial Test 

50 



Final Test 

92.8 



Gain 

42.8 



CHAPTER IV 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Summary. — Complete records were obtained from 653 
pupils from seven different schools, one of which was a 
high school. The experiments comprised all the grades 
from the fourth to the eighth and the high school. The 
results are brought together in summary form in Tables 
XXXIX to XLII. In Table XXXIX the number of pupils 
in each instance is the total number of pupils participating 
in the experiment. They are about equally divided be- 
tween the directed and undirected sections or groups. A 
7ninus difference in the score indicates a difference in favor 
of the undirected section. In a few instances the compari- 
sons are made on both standard and special tests. In such 
cases the result of both tests are summarized in the tables, 
"St." indicating the standard test and **Sp." the special test. 

In order to determine the effect of directed teaching upon 
the brighter and slower pupils, a comparison is made of the 
gains of the upper and lower quartiles. (See Table XLII, 
pages 130, 131.) 

TABLE XXXIX 

Showing the Initial and Final Scores and the Gross Gain 

Subject No. Pupils Initial Final Gain Dif. 

Arithmetic, Ats. 

Directed 21 20.3 30.4 10,1 

Undirected 20 21.0 24.0 3.0 7.1 

Arithmetic, Rts. 

Directed 21 8.5 16.5 8.0 

Undirected 20 13.3 15.0 1.7 6.3 

Handwriting, Q. 

Directed 120 39.3 49.3 10.0 

Undirected 120 38.5 40.0 1.5 8.5 

Handwriting, R. 

Directed 120 64.5 78.3 13.8 

Undirected 120 71.0 76.3 5.3 8.5 

Reading, Com. 

Directed 28 7.9 17.0 9.1 

Undirected 28 8.0 10.6 2.6 6.5 

Reading, Rate 

Directed 28 62.7 86.0 23.3 

Undirected 28 56.0 82.0 26.0 —2.7 

Arithmetic, Cor. P. 

Directed 31 15.0 19.5 4.5 

Undirected 32 14.5 16.0 1.5 3.0 



76 A Comparative Study of 

Subject No. Pupils Initial Final Gain Dif. 

Arithmetic, Cor. A. 

Directed 31 9.9 13.5 3.6 

Undirected 32 9.5 11.0 1.5 2.1 

History, H. S., Sp. 

Directed 40 66.0 82.4 16.4 

Undirected 45 67.5 68.5 1.0 15.4 

History, Gr., St. 

Directed 25 10.7 13.5 2.8 

Undirected 26 11.0 12.3 1.3 1.5 

History, Gr., Sp. 

Directed 25 78:5 85.2 6.7 

Undirected 26 78.0 76.0 —2.0 8.7 

Poetry, H. S., Sp. 

Directed 56 23.5 29.5 6.0 

Undirected 33 23,5 24.7 1.2 4.8 

Biology. 

Directed 14 68.5 83.5 15.0 

Undirected 13 68.5 69.8 1.3 13.7 

TABLE XL 

Showing the Percentage of Gain and the Gain in Terms of 
School Years 

Subject Per. Gain Dif. School Years Dif. 

Arithmetic, Ats. 

Directed 49 1.2 

Undirected 14 35 .45 .75 

Arithmetic, Rts. 

Directed 94 1.75 

Undirected 13 81 .58 1.17 

Handwriting, Qual. 

Directed 25 2.5 

Undirected 4 21 .38 2.12 

Handwriting, Rate. 

Directed 21 2.4 

Undirected 7 14 1.0 1.4 

Reading, Com. 

Directed 115 1.5 

Undirected 33 82 .4 1.1 

Reading, Rate. 

Directed 37 1.1 

Undirected 46 —9 1.2 —0.1 

Arithmetic, Cor. P. 

Directed 30 .6 

Undirected 10 20 .2 .4 

Arithmetic, Cor. A. 

Directed 36 .8 

Undirected 16 20 .3 .5 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 

Subject Per. Gain Dif. School Years 

His ory, Grade, St. 

Directed 26 1.1 

Undirected 12 14 .5 

History, Grade, Sp. 

Directed 8 

Undirected — 3 11 

History, H. S., Sp. 

Directed 25 

Undirected 2 23 

Poetry. 

Directed 26 1.0 

Undirected 5 21 .2 

Biology. 

Directed 22 

Undirected 2 20 



77 
Dif. 

.6 



TABLE XLI 

Showing the Percentage of the Directed Groups Equaling or 
Exceeding the Medians of the Undirected 

Subject Initial T. Va. From Final T. Va. From Gain 

Arithmetic, Ats. 42.8 —7.2 71.4 21.4 28.6 

Arithmetic, Rts. 33.3 —16.7 57.1 7.1 23.8 

Handwriting, Qual. 53.3 3.3 66.6 16.6 13.3 

Handwriting, Rate 43.3 —6.7 55.0 5.0 11.7 

Reading, Com. 48.2 —1.8 89.3 39.3 41.1 

Reading, Rate 64.3 14.3 46.4 —3.6 —17.9 

Arithmetic, Cor. P. 51.6 1.6 58.0 8.0 6.4 

Arithmetic, Cor. A. 53.9 3.9 74.2 24.2 20.3 

Poetry 50.0 0.0 67.9 17.9 17.9 

History, H. S. Sp. 47.5 —2.5 66.7 16.7 19.2 

History, Gr. St. 44.0 —6.0 60.0 10.0 16.0 

History, Gr. Sp. 52.0 2.0 68.0 18.0 16.0 

Biology 50.0 0.0 92.8 42.8 42.8 

Note. — According to Starch, a variation of less than 10 above or 
below 50% is not significant. 



TABLE XLII 

Showing the Gross Gain and Percentage of Gain of the Upper 
AND Lower Quartiles 

Upper Quartile Lower Quartile 

Subject Gross Per. Gross Per. 

Arithmetic, Attempts. 

Directed 7.8 30 5.0 38 

Undirected 2.6 10 4.6 35 

Arithmetic, Rights. 

Directed 6.0 23 5.8 208 

Undirected 3.8 20 5.4 108 

Handwriting, Quality. 

Directed 3.1 5 12.7 50 

Undirected —0.6 —1 4.3 15 



78 



A Comparative Study of 



Subject Gross 

Handwriting, Rate. 

Directed —13.9 

Undirected —11.0 

Reading, Comprehension. 

Directed 12.6 

Undirected 6.3 

Reading, Rate. 

Directed 30.0 

Undirected 25.0 

Arithmetic, Correct P. 

Directed 3.7 

Undirected — 1.9 

Arithmetic, Correct A. 

Directed 2.8 

Undirected 1.2 

Poetry. 

Directed — 5.0 

Undirected —2.9 

History, H. S., Special. 

Directed 11.4 

Undirected — 6.0 

History, Grade, Standard. 

Directed 1.5 

Undirected .5 

History, Grade, Special. 

Directed 4.4 

Undirected —3.0 

Biology. 

Directed 3.3 

Undirected — 7.0 



Gross 



Per. 



—1 
—1 


33.2 
15.8 


72 
33 


100 
55 


6.8 
4.2 


212 
221 


38 
31 


20.0 
26.0 


54 
123 


15 

—7 


2.8 
3.4 


35 

52 


11 
8 


3.5 
3.0 


58 
60 


—19 
—10 


5.0 
7.9 


55 

78 


14 

—7 


17.4 
10.3 


39 

21 


10 

3 


5.0 
—0.1 


55 
—00.5 


5 
—3 


12.5 
.8 


23 
2 


4 
—8 


13.0 
—70 


31 
—15 



Conclusions. — In the foregoing experiments there are so 
many variable factors that could not be controlled rigidly, 
under ordinary school conditions, that the psychology of 
the results obtained remains somewhat obscure. For edu- 
cational practice, however, the outstanding fact is that, un- 
der the directed-teaching plan applied in these experiments, 
the directed group made more gain than the undirected, 
with one exception — namely, in rate of reading. On the 
other hand, since there are so many variable factors in- 
volved, it would be hazardous to draw any sweeping con- 
clusions. The following factual conclusions are obvious : 

1. In six of the eight experiments there is a significant 
difference in favor of the directed groups, the difference in 
the medians being from four to ten times the probable error 
of the difference. 

2. In two of the experiments — history in the seventh 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 79 

grade and problem solving in arithmetic — the difference is 
small, but in favor of the directed groups. In these experi- 
ments the difference is from 1.8 to 3.7 times the probable 
error of the difference. 

3. In gain in terms of school years there is a decided dif- 
ference in favor of the directed groups, with the exception 
of the gain in rate of reading. (See Table XL, page 127.) 

4. On the basis of the percentage of the directed group 
equaling or exceeding the median of the undirected, there is 
a significant gain in favor of the directed groups in eleven 
of the thirteen comparisons. In one instance the gain is 
small, and in another there is a significant difference in fa- 
vor of the undirected group. (See Table XLI, page 129.) 

5. In the directed groups the lower quartiles make more 
gross gain than the upper quartiles in nine out of thirteen 
comparisons, and a greater percentage of gain in eleven out 
of thirteen comparisons. In the undirected groups the 
lower quartiles make more gross gain in eleven out of thir- 
teen comparisons, and a greater percentage of gain in 
twelve out of thirteen comparisons. (See Table XLII.) 
From these figures it is apparent that directed teaching 
tends to help the brighter pupils more than the slower ones, 
but the difference is so slight that it is practically negligible. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

No attempt is made to present a complete bibliography. 
Only those studies bearing most directly on the present 
problem are listed. 

Atchison, A. E.: Helping Teachers in Service. Elementary School 
Journal, 20: 65-67, 1919. 

Allen, I. M.: Experiments in Supervised Study. School Review, 25: 
398-411, 1917. 

Anderson, J. C. : The Use of the Woody Scales for Diagnostic Pur- 
poses. Elementary School Journal, 18: 770-781, 1918. 

Arps, G. F. : Attitude as a Determinant in Spelling Efficiency in Imme- 
diate and Delayed Recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 
6: 409-418, 1915. 

Ashbaugh, E. J.: The Measurement of Language. Journal of Edu- 
cational Research, 4: 32-39, 1921. 

Ballou, F. W. : Scale for the Measurement of English Composition. 
Harvard-Newton Bulletin, No. 11. 

Batson, W. H.: The Acquisition of Skill. 

Breed, F. S. : The Measured Results of Supervised Study. School Re- 
view, 27: 186-204 and 262-284, 1919. 

Breslich, E. R. : Teaching High School Pupils How to Study. School 
Review, 20: 505-515, 1912. 

Brown, J. C. : An Investigation of the Value of Drill Work in the 
Fundamentals of Arithmetic. Journal of Educational Psychol- 
ogy, 3: 485-492 and 561-570, 1912. 

Bryan, W. L., and Harter, N.: Studies in the Physiology and Psychol- 
ogy of the Telegraphic Language. Psychology Review, 4: 27-53, 
1897. and 6: 348-375, 1899. 

Buckingham, B. R.: Spelling Ability — Its Measure and Distribution. 
Teachers' College Contributions to Education, No. 59, 1913. 

Burr, A. W.: Directed Study. School Review, 27: 90-100, 1919. 

Chapman, J. C, and Rush, G. P.: The Measurement of Classroom 
Products, 1917. 

Charters, W. H. : Constructing a Language and Grammar Scale. 
Journal of Educational Research, 1: 249-257, 1918. 

Cole, T. R.: One Year of Supervised Study. School Review, 25: 331- 
335, 1917. 

Courtis, S. A.: Measuring the Effects of Supervision in Geography. 
School and Society, 10: 61-70, 1919. 

Cummins, R. A. : Improvement and Distribution of Practice. Teach- 
ers' College Contributions to Education, No. 97, 1919. 

Dearborn, W. F. : The Psychology of Reading, Archives of Psychol- 
ogy, No. 4. 

Downing, E. R. : Supervised Study and the Science Laboratory. 
School Review, 25: 646-651, 1917. 

Dunn, Grace A. : The Value of Supervised Study. Teachers' College 
Record, 18: 430-437, 1917. 

Earhart, L. B. : Teaching Children to Study, 1909. 

Edwards, A. S. : The Fundamental Principles of Learning and Study, 
1920. 

Erickson, J. E.: Result of Supervised Study in the Houghton (Mich.) 
High School. School Review, 24: 752-758, 1916. 

Evans, J. W., and Knoche, F.: The Effect of Special Drill in Arith- 
metic as Measured by the Woody and Courtis Arithmetic Test. 
Journal of Educational Psychology, 10: 263-276, 1919. 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 81 

Freeman, F. N.: How Children Learn, 1917. 

: The Handwriting Movement. Supplementary Ed- 
ucational Monographs, No. 9, 1918. 

: The Teaching of Handwriting, 1914. 

: An Analytic Scale for Handwriting. Elementary 

School Journal, 15: 432-441, 1915. 
Fulton, J. M.: An Experiment in Teaching Spelling. Pedagogical 

Seminary, 2: 287-289, 1914. 
Gates, A. I. : Recitation as a Factor in Memorizing. Archives of 
Psychology, No. 40, 1917. 

Gray, W. S.: Studies of Elementary School Reading Through Stand- 
ardized Tests. Supplementary Educational Monographs, No. 1. 

: Principles of Method in Teaching Reading as De- 
rived from Scientific Investigation. Eighteenth Year Book, Part 
II, National Society for the Study of Education. 

: The Technique of Supervising High School Teach- 
ing. School Review, 27: 512-522, 1919. 

: Diagnostic and Remedial Types in Reading. Jour- 
nal of Educational Research, 4: 1-15, 1921. 

Gray, C. T.: Types of Reading Ability as Exhibited Through Tests 
and Laboratory Experiments. Supplementary Educational Mon- 
ograph, No. 5. 

Haggerty, M. E.: The Laws of Learning. Psychological Review, 20: 
411-422. 

Hahn, W. H., and Thorndike, E. L. : Some Results in Addition Under 
School Conditions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 5: 65- 
84, 1914. 

Hall-Quest, A. L.: Supervised Study, 1916. 

Hennon, V. A. C. : The Relation Between Mode of Presentation and 
Retention. Psychological Review, 19: 79-96. 

Hillegas, M. B.: The Measurement of Quality in English Composition. 
Teachers' College Record, 1912. 

Huey, E. B. : Experiments in the Physiology and Psychology of Read- 
ing. American Journal of Psychology, 9: 575-586; 11: 283-302; 
12: 292-312. 

Horn, Ernest: Principles of Method in Teaching Spelling as Derived 
from Scientific Investigations. Eighteenth Year Book, Part II; 
National Society for the Study of Education. 

Johnston, J. H. : Scientific Supervision of Teaching. School and So- 
ciety, 5: 181-188, 1917. 

Judd, C. H. : Practice Without Knowledge of Results. Psychological 
Review Monograph Supplement, No. 1, 1905. 

: Measuring the Work of the Public Schools, 1916. 

Kelly, F. J.: The Results of Three Types of Drill on the Fundamen- 
tals of Arithmetic. Journal of Educational Research, 2 : 693-700, 
1920. 

King, I.: Comparison of Rapid and Slow Readers in Comprehension. 
School and Society, 4: 320-324, 1916. 

Kirby, T. J. : Practice in the Case of School Children. Teachers' Col- 
lege Contributions to Education, No. 58, 1913. 

Kirkpatrick, E. A.: An Experiment in Memorizing vs. Incidental 
Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 5: 405-413, 1914. 

Lakenan, M. E.: The Whole and Part Method of Memorizing Poetry 
and Prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4: 189-198, 1913. 

Lane, H. A. : Standard Tests as an Aid to Supervision. Elementary 
School Journal, 15: 378-386, 1915. 

Luqueer, F. L. : Self -Accounting in Supervision. Educational Re- 
view, 49: 460-468, 1915. 



82 A Comparative Study of 

Mayman, J. E.: An Experimental Investigation of the Book, Lecture, 
and Experiment Method of Teaching Science in the Elementary 
Schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 6: 246-250, 1915. 

McClelland, W. W. : An Experimental Study of the Different Methods 
of Subtraction. Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 4: 293-299, 
1918. 

McMurry, F. M. : How to Study, 1909. 

McGregor, Laura: Supervised Study in English, 1921. 

Mead, A. R. : Tendencies in Educational Measurements. Educational 
Review, 61: 117-127, 1921. 

Mead, C. D.: Spelling by Visualization Versus Drill Methods. Jour- 
nal of Educational Psychology, 5: 29-31, 1914. 

: Results in Silent Reading Versus Oral Reading. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 8: 367-368, 1917. 

: An Experiment in the Fundamentals, 1921. 

Mead, C. D., and Johnston, C. W. : Testing Practice Material in the 
Fundamentals of Arithmetic. Journal of Educational Psychol- 
ogy, 9: 289-297, 1918. 

Minnich, J. H.: An Experiment in the Supervised Study of Mathe- 
matics. School Review, 21 : 670-675, 1913. 

Monroe, W. S., et al. : Educational Tests and Measurements, 1917. 

Monroe, W. S.: Measuring the Results of Teaching, 1918. 

Nutt, H. W. : Rhythm in Handwriting. Elementary School Journal, 
19: 532-540, 1919. 

Nutt, W. N.: The Supervision of Instruction, 1920. 

O'Brien, J. A.: Silent Reading, 1921. 

Payne, G. E.: An Experiment in Motivation. Elementary School 
Journal, 17: 727-733, 1917. 

Pearson, H. C. : The Scientific Study of the Teaching of Spelling. 
Journal of Educational Psychology, 2: 241-252, 1911. 

Pechstein, A. L. : Alleged Element of Waste in Learning a Motor 
Problem. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8: 303-310, 1917. 

: Whole Versus Part Methods of Learning Nonsensi- 
cal Syllables. Journal of Educational Psychology, 9: 381-387, 
1918. 

: Best Method of Mastering a Motor Problem. Ele- 
mentary School Journal, 17: 734-740, 1917. 

Peters, C. C. : The Influence of Speed Drills on the Rate and Effective- 
ness of Silent Reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8: 
350-366, 1917. 

Peterson, J.: The Effect of Attitude on Immediate and Delayed Re- 
call. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7: 523-532, 1916. 

Phillips, F. M.: Value of Daily Drill in Arithmetic. Journal of Edu- 
cational Psychology, 4: 159-163, 1913. 

Pintner, R., and Gilleland, A. R. : Oral and Silent Reading. Journal 
of Educational Psychology, 7: 201-213, 1916. 

Pintner, R. : Oral and Silent Reading of Fourth Grade Pupils. Jour- 
nal of Educational Psychology, 4: 333-337, 1913. 

Pitman, M. S.: The Value of School Supervision, 1921. 

Proctor, W. M.: Supervised Study on the Pacific Coast. School and 
Society, 6: 326-328, 1917. 

Pyle, W. H.: Economical Learning. Journal of Educational Psychol- 
ogy, 4: 148-158, 1913. 

: Concentrated Versus Distributed Practice. Jour- 
nal of Educational Psychology, 5: 247-258, 1914. 

Pyle, W. H., and Snyder, J. C: The Most Economic Unit for Commit- 
ting to Memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2: 133- 
142, 1911. 



Directed and Undirected Teaching 83 

Reavis, W. C. : Factors That Determine the Habits of Study of Grade 
Pupils. Elementary School Teacher, 12: 71-81, 1912. 

: Importance of a Study Program for High School 

Pupils. School Review, 19: 398-405, 1911. 

Ross, C. : Problem of Supervised Study in the Grades. Education, 
39: 457-470, 1919. 

Ruger, H. A.: The Psychology of Efficiency. Archives of Psychology, 
No. 15. 

Rugg, E. U. : Character and Value of Standard Tests in History. 
School Review, 27: 757-771, 1919. 

Rugg, H. O. : Statistical Methods Applied to Education, 1917. 

Saam, T. : Intelligence Testing as an Aid to Supervision. Elementary 
School Journal, 20: 26-32, 1920. 

Sachs, F.: A Preliminary Study of the Relative Efficiency of Induc- 
tive and Deductive Teaching of Logical Fallacies. Journal of 
Educational Psychology, 4: 381-391, 1913. 

Sandwick, R. L. : How to Study and What to Study, 1916. 

Schmidt, W. A. : An Experimental Study in the Psychology of Read- 
ing. Supplementary Educational Monograph, No. 2, 1917. 

Simpson, Mabel: Supervised Study in History, 1918. 

Starch, D. : Unconscious Imitation in Handwriting. Psychological 
Review, 18: 223-228, 1911. 

: Periods of Work in Learning. Journal of Educa- 
tional Psychology, 3: 209-213, 1912. 

: The Measurement of Efficiency in Reading. Jour- 
nal of Educational Psychology, 6: 1-24, 1915. 

: The Measurement of Efficiency in Writing. Jour- 
nal of Educational Psychology, 6: 106-114, 1915. 

: The Measurement of Efficiency in Spelling. Jour- 
nal of Educational Psychology, 6: 176-186, 1915. 

: The Measurement of Achievement in English 

Grammar. Journal of Educational Psychology, 6: 615-626, 1915. 

: Scale for Measuring Ability in Arithmetic. Jour- 
nal of Educational Psychology, 7: 213-222, 1916. 

: Educational Measurements, 1916. 

Stockton, J. L.: Effective Supervision. Education, 33: 344-351, 1913. 

Stone, C. W. : Problems in the Scientific Study of the Teaching of 
Arithmetic. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4: 1-16, 1913. 

: Standardized Tests in Arithmetic and How to Use 

Them. Teachers' College Contributions to Education, No. 83, 
1916. 

Strayer, G. D. : Use of Tests and Scales of Measurement in the Ad- 
ministration of Schools. N. E. A. Report, 1915: 579-582. 

Suzzalo, H.: The Teaching of Spelling, 1910. 

Terman, L. M. : The Measurement of Intelligence, 1916. 

Thorndike, E. L. : An Improved Scale for Measuring Ability in Read- 
ing. Teachers' College Record. 16: 445-467, 1915, and 17: 40-67, 
1916. 

: Mental and Social Measurements, 1913. 

: The Psychology of Drill in Arithmetic. Journal 

of Educational Psychology, 12: 183-194, 1921. 

: The Relation Between Speed and Accuracy in 

Addition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 5: 537-544, 1914. 

: Practice in the Case of Addition. American Jour- 
nal of Psychology, 21 : 483-486, 1910. 

: The Curve of Work. Psychological Review, 19: 

165-194, 1912. 

Trabue, M. R.: Completion Test Language Scales. Teachers' College 
Contributions to Education, No. 77, 1916. 



84 A Comparative Study of 

Uhl, W. L. : The Use of the Results of Reading Tests as Bases for 
Planning Remedial Work. Elementary School Journal, 17: 266- 
275, 1916. 

: The Use of Standardized Materials in Arithmetic 

for Diagnosing Pupils' Methods of Work. Elementary School 
Journal, 18: 215-218, 1918. 

Vance, W. M.: How Shall the Superintendent Measure His Own Effi- 
ciency? N. E. A. Report, 1914: 279-283. 

Wagner, C. A.: Supervision of Instruction. Educational Review, 59: 
137-141, 1920. 

Whipple, G. M.: How to Study Effectively, 1916. 

Wilson, H. B.: Training Pupils to Study, 1918. 

Wilson, G. M., and Hoke, K. J.: How to Measure, 1921. 

Willing, M. A. : Measurement of Written Composition in Grades VI 
to VIII. English Journal, 7: 193-202, 1918. 

Winch, W. H. : Additional Researches in Learning to Spell. Journal 
of Educational Psychology, 7: 39-110, 1916, 

: Inductive Versus Deductive Methods, 1913. 

Woody, C. : Measurement of Some Achievements in Arithmetic. Teach- 
ers' College Contributions to Education, No. 80, 1916. 

Zimmers, P. J.: Teaching Boys and Girls How to Study, 1918. 

Zirbes, Laura: An Experimental Evaluation of Method in Spelling. 
Elementary School Journal, 19: 778-798, 1919. 

Diagnostic Measurement as a Basis of Procedure. 

Elementary School Journal, 18: 505-522, 1918. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 745 424 6 



